Difference between revisions of "Standard 5"

==Introduction==

Library and information resources at the Evergreen State College support students as they learn how to reason and communicate about freely chosen inquiries whose outcomes remain to be discovered or created (Smith, Standard 2)—in short, as they learn the skills of research, information literacy and media production. Library and information resources balance the open-ended demands of free inquiry against the need for stability, security and efficiency in systems and services.  This balance constitutes the focus of how we evaluate our role in undergraduate education. All areas of library and information resources are shaped by the primary mission of teaching and of providing state-of-the-art facilities for programs and individual students.  Historically, the Library has been well funded because of how deliberately it has integrated teaching, services, facilities, and collections across the curriculum in response to the demands of open-ended inquiry and independent study.  In fact, the high level of funding represents the strong collaboration among library and media staff, faculty, and administration, all of whom work in concert to develop the library as a center for teaching and learning.

Two broad roles define and distinguish library and information resources at Evergreen. This chapter first describes and evaluates teaching and instruction performed by library and information resources staff and faculty.  Second, the chapter addresses the collections, tools, and services developed by library and information resources in support of Evergreen's academic program.

==Teaching and Instruction==

===Description of Teaching and Instructional Programs: An Overview===

Library and information resources faculty and staff instruct and teach in multiple modes, from basic skills instruction to more complex, content-driven teaching by faculty and professionals in the curriculum.  In addition, the teaching faculty contributes substantively and collaboratively to information services, collections and policies. This dynamic collaboration between the teaching faculty and the library and information resources has shaped our primary mission to support inquiry-based education. Each area within library and information resources has developed structures to connect teaching and instruction closely to the faculty, the curriculum and the academic mission of the college.

====Faculty Librarians and Library Teaching====

In the case of the Library, Evergreen requires rotation between the librarians and the teaching faculty [Exhibit: Pedersen, etc. for full description].  To describe this rotation briefly, faculty librarians rotate out of the library to teach full-time on a regular basis and, in exchange, teaching faculty rotate into the library to serve as librarians providing reference, instruction and collection development.  Faculty who rotate into the library leave with updated skills for developing information literacy within their programs and teams across the curriculum. Library faculty develop their subject specialties and enhance their ability to work across pedagogical and disciplinary realms. Perpetual faculty-wide interactions in faculty governance and team-teaching reinforce the strong connections between the library faculty and the teaching faculty. Librarians know the faculty as colleagues and teaching faculty know the librarians (probably the only basis for widespread and effective library instruction in a curriculum without requirements). Teaching teams also spread best practices in library instruction as older teaching faculty introduce their new faculty teammates to their library colleagues and the teaching they offer.

A loose liaison system links each librarian with a subset of the curriculum, based on subject expertise and personal alliances.  Faculty librarians provide a wide array of library and information technology related teaching. Teaching outside the library in the curriculum at large, library faculty develop teaching and subject expertise which increases their competence and creativity as they work to match library instruction with individual academic programs. One-time workshops designed to introduce sources particular to the research projects within an academic program represent the most common format. Librarians and teaching faculty design these workshops with the assumption that the skills imparted are embedded in the interests and needs of the program learning community. At a minimum, the faculty for the program usually 1) create a research assignment which informs and motivates the students’ work; 2) attend the workshop and take part, adding his or her expertise and/or questions; 3) provide the library liaison a syllabus and a copy of the assignment and a list of the topics students are considering and 4) ask the students to begin considering their topic before attending the workshop so that they are primed to begin actual research during the workshop. Librarians teach in staged series of workshops most frequently in the graduate programs, in the sciences, and in the off campus programs. Each year one or more library faculty affiliates deeply with a program, meeting weekly to create stepped learning conjoined with research assignments [Exhibit: Sara H. syllabi?]. For several years an information technology seminar linked library internship opportunities with a hands-on web technology workshop.  In that model, a small group of students explored contemporary questions in the world of rapid digitization and its social implications.  They paralleled that study with real library work and web production practice, including wikis and webpages designed to support library functions [Exhibits: IT wiki, Rare Books page; SAIL page?]. The seminar and workshop provided a venue for library faculty, staff and Academic Computing instructors to gather and consider both the past and future of information technologies [Exhibit: internship syllabi]. Each year one librarian also offers research methods through the evening and weekend curriculum. [Exhibit: Randy Stilson syllabi]

Library support for the two major off-campus offerings, the Tacoma and the Reservation-Based, Community-Determined programs, focuses heavily on instruction. Students of these programs have limited access to the physical library, and must be directed to the many high quality resources made available to them on-line. Most years, librarians work closely with the Research Methods class at Tacoma, providing instruction on site several weeks per quarter. In Winter 2008, a librarian will offer a 2-credit research module linked to the broader interdisciplinary curriculum of the Tacoma campus.  Library instruction at the Reservation sites of the Reservation-Based Community-Determined programs has varied widely. Recently the program has focused on building library methods into the lower division bridge curriculum, which has not involved the library directly.  Rebuilding this connection should be a high priority, and a planned faculty rotation from the Reservation-Based program will be an opportunity to do so. See the supplemental discussion of new services for discussion of the many ways direct access to collections has been facilitated through new services to off-campus programs. [this will need to be a link to the specific paragraphs]  [Exhibit: NAS and Tacoma resource pages]

Within the library, the library faculty see themselves primarily as teachers.  They tend to understand the services of the library in the context of teaching, rather than as service providers.  They take a proactive approach to the work, suggesting tools and strategies for designing library instruction, and finding the intellectual work in the world of research instruction.  They position themselves to work across administrative as well as curricular boundaries and sustain an important role in the crossroads of traditional research methods, contemporary information technology and the world of the curriculum and teaching faculty.

====Modes of Instruction in Media and Academic Computing====

At the level of academic programs, all major computer and media labs provide group instruction covering particular applications or the tools of the relevant discipline. Media and computing instructors teach workshops in different spaces and in different modes, depending on the discipline and the technology. There are no constraints upon what facility may be used. In one quarter, a science program might have workshops in the Computer Center focusing on blogs; a math workshop using Excel in the Computer Applications Lab; a session on using video for documenting field research in the Multimedia lab; and a library research workshop in one of the general-purpose labs in the Computer Center. In this way, academic programs leverage staff expertise and facilities as needed.

Teaching faculty must be able to easily identify and contact the appropriate staff member to coordinate ITL instruction which may also require significant logistical support such as lab scheduling, equipment check-out, server space, password access, personnel scheduling and other details. In Academic Computing, program liaisons work with faculty in order to coordinate how programs will teach technology. For instance, the staff member helps set up file shares, web spaces, and schedules and teaches workshops.  In Media Services, the Head of Instructional Media provides a central location for faculty and students requesting instructional support in media to get help connecting with appropriate media instructors and scheduling facilities and instruction. The Media Services staff play a central role in how faculty design and integrate media into their programs. Media faculty meet regularly with Media Services staff so that they can develop facilities, plan for access, and foster how academic programs integrate media into the curriculum.

Students who work independently on media or computing projects or who decide to tackle media projects within non-media oriented programs find many forms of instructional support outside of academic programs.  Academic Computing offers regularly scheduled technology workshops, which are open to all.  In addition, Evergreen students can access Lynda.com, which tutors students in software applications and programming languages.  The Library recently subscribed to Safari Books Online, which supports the computer science curriculum, but which also answers the technical inquires of students across the curriculum.  A Computing wiki began last year and hosts approximately 2,000 pages of instructions and tutorials.  Increasingly, students, faculty and staff rely on the wiki to stay abreast of technologies hosted on campus.  Students may access most media production facilities and check out portable media equipment once they have completed a proficiency training session. Media instructors run hundreds of these quick, skills-focused instructional sessions annually, serving thousands of students, ensuring proper use of the equipment, and providing supportive technical background for systems. Finally, the Evening and Weekend Studies curriculum provides a coherent, regular pathway for instruction in use of the more complex production facilities, allowing students to gain the skills needed to apply media production resources to their work.

Like the library faculty, Media instruction comes in a variety of modes: full-time, part-time, introductory, intensive, general, sustained, intermittent, specialized, individual, within programs or collaboratively in small groups. Many of the media staff are artists, professionals, and faculty in their own right with MFA’s in their fields. They teach photography, electronic music, web design, and digital imaging as adjuncts in Evening & Weekend Studies and in Extended Education. Their contributions to the curriculum are substantial and sustained, some of them having taught for over 20 years.  Not only does their work support the Expressive Arts, it also provides access and instruction to students who don’t consider themselves artists but who want nevertheless to engage in technologies that constitute not just important developing communication media but also define the visual aesthetics of science, history, political science, psychology, and visual narrative.   Media staff who are adjuncts sometimes teach full time, as visiting artists. In general, Media staff are central to the success of media-based programs and are viewed as colleagues by the Expressive Arts faculty, whose programs they support, and as gurus by the faculty who are less media-literate. These working relationships form the backbone of Media Services.  Finally, Photo, Electronic Media and Media Loan staff annually teach as field supervisors for up to eight student interns who are critical to the effective functioning of labs and services. These students typically not only gain high level technical production skills, but also develop instructional, collaborative and administrative experience by working closely with students, faculty and technical staff.  Finally, all Media staff sponsor many individual contracts which provide opportunities for students who have identified intensive individual inquiries which are not supported in the curriculum at large.

Library and information resources instructors also regularly work with and teach the faculty at large through individual collaboration, but also through faculty institutes. Faculty institutes create valuable connections among faculty, library, media and academic computing instructors.   Every summer, the Dean of Faculty Development asks faculty and staff to propose institutes that will familiarize participants in new technologies.  The Dean funds the proposals that generate the most enrollment, which means that the faculty and staff drive this avenue for development.  Recent ITL institutes have focused on teaching statistics with Excel or on using online collaborative tools in foster learning communities.  During institutes, faculty are also afforded paid time for self-directed work that focuses on their programs.  In these instances, faculty evaluate technology, practice using it, and plan how to incorporate applications into their programs.

===Analysis & Assessment of Teaching & Instructional Programs===

The strong focus on teaching throughout library and information resources suggests the following questions: 1) In a college without requirements, does information technology instruction reach enough students to assure that the vast majority of graduates develop their skills broadly in support of their inquiries? 2) Which students are taught?  Do students receive their information technology instruction in an array of disciplinary and developmentally varied situations or is it happening only in pockets of the curriculum?  3) Is it working?  Are students acquiring cross-curricular information technology and media literacy?

====How many students are taught?====

Within recent years about 75% of the total FTE attends program-based library instruction workshops annually. [Exhibit: workshop statistics]. In media services, from 2000 to 2007, a total of more than 1500 workshops were offered to approximately 156 programs. The number of media workshops given and students reached in 2005 and 2006 were each more than double the numbers provided in 2000.  Workshops have increased along with new technologies, especially in Media Loan and in the new Multimedia and DIS labs.

Academic Computing instructors provide academic program-based training sessions and workshops throughout the academic year.

{| cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="1"| class="wikitable"

The number of teaching contacts shows that library and information resources staff teach a large number of students, but not which students. In end-of-program reviews from 2001-2006, The Office of Institutional Research asked faculty, “Did your students use technology to present work, conduct research (including library research), or solve problems?  If yes, How?”  Not surprisingly, faculty answered, “library/internet research skills were the most commonly used, followed by some form of presentation technology. .”  [Exhibit: http://www.evergreen.edu/institutionalresearch/pdf/assessment/epr/EPRsummary2006technology.pdf.]

=====Media/IT Literacy across the Curriculum: Where are we now?=====

The Computer Applications Lab also shows a trend toward more broadly used applications.  Although the CAL has traditionally focused on the science curriculum in ES and SI, these users have begun to share their space with those who have less specialized demands.  Roughly 60%-70% of the classes in the CAL now work with statistical or numeric analysis, primarily Excel, but also including Graphical Analysis, R, and SPSS. Ninety percent of CAL users prepare presentations, most often with Powerpoint, Word, Illustrator, and Excel. Approximately 60% of the programs meeting in the CAL still use analytical tools, including (in order of usage) ArcGIS, Mathematica, and Stella, which were once the focal point of all CAL applications.  Science faculty have shifted their emphasis to on-site analysis, using advanced applications in specialized scientific labs in ways that parallel the shift in Media Services toward advanced applications.  Meanwhile, the CAL and the Computer Center serve increasing numbers of students who seek instruction or support for the more and more powerful personal computing applications in media production, statistical analysis and presentation media.

=====Critical Approaches to Media=====

Although library and information resources instructors work to fuse teaching with program content, students are nevertheless free to access any media application or information technology beyond or without considering program content.  Likewise, many programs focus entirely on technical skill building, without any formal attempt to link these practices to disciplinary content. And in other areas of the curriculum, such as CTL, critical media and information studies are often taught in a theoretical mode, without hands-on media production—the thing itself. The point is that, when skills are valorized over content—or when theory ignores practice-students neglect concrete critical reflection on how technology impacts the message, the creators, the audience, or society. However, the generic library model—the founding principle for library and information resources at Evergreen—has emphasized and counterbalanced the tendency to isolate skills from content.  Students who read texts are expected to write as well; why should they not be expected to create media as well as view it?  Early on, a rotating faculty member who helped link instruction with critical media studies and with interdisciplinary programs directed Media Services. Library and information resources continue to struggle to advocate for the critical study of media and information technology across the curriculum.

=====Teaching Information Technology Literacy (ITL) Across the Curriculum=====

During the first half of the self-study period, the Legislature mandated Information Technology Literacy (ITL) as a central focus for colleges and universities in the State. The ITL movement presented nothing surprising to the Evergreen Library, which has been engaged in these ideas and goals since the founding of the college. However, the legislative mandate created interest in evaluating our work. As used in this study, the term ITL encompasses every aspect of information technology, including digitized library research, but also includes concepts found in the literatures of media literacy, visual studies, and communications (critical approaches to media).

In order to assure that students have the skills to communicate about their open inquiries, library and information resources take a broad role in the curriculum. Two of the “Six Expectations of an Evergreen Graduate” relate directly to the library and information resources commitment to help students achieve intellectual independence, creativity, and critical acumen. Expectation Two states that our graduates will communicate creatively and effectively;  Expectation Four, that our graduates apply qualitative, quantitative, and creative modes of inquiry appropriately to practical and theoretical problems across the disciplines. When students at Evergreen learn about media and information technologies, they also are immersed in disciplinary content that promotes their ability to "access, analyze, evaluate and create messages across a variety of contexts."  Not only should literate students read and write astutely, they also should access, view, critique and produce digital media and information that is clear, eloquent and complete.  In this way, digital scholarship merges seamlessly with individual and formal educational goals, just as print scholarship has in the past. [Footnote Sonia Livingstone article; Wyatt's definition; Caryn's position paper from the gen ed. process Nov. 27, 2000].

Library and information resources support ITL, including media literacy, as an agenda for students across programs, disciplines and media.  Library and information resources collaborate with teaching teams as they instruct students in media and students who create films, multimedia or musical works for programs or for independent study.  These are the challenges of the "freely chosen inquiry," –challenges that cannot all be met at all times.  However, the location of Media Services administratively and physically within Library Services is meant to insure that media studies and media production are supported appropriately both within the programs that media faculty teach and elsewhere in the freely chosen inquiries of students.

Academic computing also provides access to—and instruction in-- information technologies through a balance of specialized and open computing facilities. With the migration of many media applications to commonly available personal computer platforms, instruction and facilities to support entry-level media production have spread to academic computing and even to the library proper.

The Library, consistent with college-wide practices, rejects requirements and embraces students who engage in open inquiry and independent judgment and who evince the ineffable quality of critical acumen.  In this context, the Library supports a fluid curriculum and responds to changes that drive the needs and expectations of an innovative teaching faculty.  Because the Library shapes teaching according to individual students, a fluid curriculum, and highly diverse pedagogy,  standard or standardized assessment methods do  not  apply.  Instead, the Library commits to the intensive and never ending task of recreating learning goals, student-by-student, program-by-program. Context is everything, which obviates the role of abstract standards and measures.

On the other hand, the Library does engage in qualitative assessment—a descriptive characterization of ITL teaching and learning. As is the case throughout the faculty, library faculty write annual evaluations of themselves and their library and teaching colleagues. These evaluations consistently address instructional aspirations, successes and failures. [Exhibits: Library Faculty Evaluations] 

Further, under the leadership of the Office of Institutional Research, the librarians designed a project that assessed students as they worked through real research inquiries.  The study documented the techniques and processes—and to some extent, the thinking—of several small samples of students as they collaborated intensively on research questions. The study showed that these particular students wee stronger in their grasp of content than they were in their command of library research tools for their specific inquiries.  In other words, a question about history might not lead them to Historical Abstracts. They were also strong in their ability to develop their research questions and to evaluate and synthesize the results. What these results suggest is that “Faculty may want to assess their students’ abilities to obtain information and offer tutorials or refer students to the Library when deficiencies are detected.”

The Evergreen Student Experience Survey asks questions which elucidate what the students themselves think they learned at Evergreen. In the 2006, the ESES asked "To what extent have your Evergreen experiences contributed to your growth in ... the following computer-related fields...?"  For the category 'Studying or Doing Research via the Internet or other online sources":

* 47.5% reported quite a bit or a lot, for a total of 77.5%.

* More than 84% of Tacoma students reported at least some, of which 50% reported quite a bit.

* More than 93% of reservation-based students reported at least some contribution; 86.2% reporting quite a bit or a lot.

These statistics correlate well with the end-of-program review and instructional data cited earlier. Considering just how many students seem to express self-confidence in their research skills, and as the internet provides so many increasingly powerful tools for personal research, it is heartening to see that a good majority of students recognize that they developed greater (and one hopes more scholarly) research skills as part of their education at Evergreen.

* Just over 42% reported Evergreen contributed "Some", "Quite a Bit" or "A Lot".

* Fully 36.8% said "Not at All"

* and 20.9% said "Very Little."

Evergreen students are more likely to learn about word processing than any other computer application. No single type of application is found in large numbers, but rather many types have small representation.

[still need summary of the remaining computer skills other than library and media]

===Future Aspirations and Challenges for Instruction===

====Library Instruction====

Individual library faculty are spending more time out of the library teaching in the curriculum as a result of the loss of one library faculty line to budget cuts. This takes it toll on affairs internal to the library. Specifically, the librarians can’t attend consistently to administration; they struggle to support all areas of the curriculum; and they have not been able to respond to proposed increases in hours for the reference desk.  Further, reference desk service has changed as the Internet creates patrons who access our resources from remote locations. Most immediately, virtual patrons do not benefit from the teaching that takes place at the reference desk. As the physical reference desk diminishes in importance, faculty who rotate into the library have more limited opportunities to learn about library resources through interactions with patrons. These trends, challenges, and problems should inform the reference group as they consider how to proceed in allocating team responsibilities with or without an increase in the number of library faculty.

The reference group should evaluate service to areas of the curriculum that report or demonstrate less involvement in the various forms of information technology instruction (as reflected in end of program reports)and consider whether more or different instructional support would be appropriate or desirable. For instance, one of the science librarians retired, leaving one librarian to cover all SI programs.  Because this librarian teaches intensively in a few programs, some SI programs may be underserved.  This may contribute to the tendency of SI programs to report less work with library research in programs. Thus, the next library faculty hire should probably emphasize scientific expertise.

The science librarian who does intensive, embedded instruction, works with students as they write bibliographies, which become the basis for evaluating the effectiveness of student research.  Some of the other librarians evaluate bibliographies as well.  This approach could be more broadly applied to programs across the curriculum, where students are required to research competently and to represent their work clearly in bibliographies, abstracts, research papers, essays and stories. Faculty librarians may want to explore evaluating research results more commonly as they develop their ties with programs and faculty in all disciplines. As librarians become more involved in each stage of research, including writing or production, they should be able to provide more consistent support to students. Of course, this more intensive work with individual programs must be restricted according to the time and energy of the small library faculty team. Variations in the academic year cycle, which show significantly lighter workshop demands in winter, as compared to fall quarter, suggest one strategy for extending this service. This may also be an area to which rotating faculty can contribute.

Academic Computing and the Library Faculty should explore connections with the Quantitative and Writing Centers. The many overlapping values and concerns of these areas seem obvious.  In fact, the barriers that persist seem to reflect different philosophies of service—specifically, of public service—rather than intractably divergent views of teaching and learning. For instance, students do a great deal of the teaching in the writing center, whereas faculty librarians consider teaching to be the center of their work. Yet everyone agrees that student-centered instruction is one of the best modes of learning.

====Shared Technology Creates the Need for More Shared Work====

Today, commonly used media applications, once physically limited to Media Services, are now found throughout the facilities administered by Academic Computing and, to a degree, by the Library. Similarly, library resources, once physically limited to the library building, are found anywhere one can reach the web. Computers, once found only in the Computer Center, are everywhere. These shifts have accelerated over the past ten years and have changed the instructional roles of the areas and their relationship to the curriculum. Undoubtedly, library and information resources will continue to distribute their budgets, facilities and staff to continuing expansion of information technology in programs and for individual students.

As technologies have changed, so have the relationships among the Library, Media Services, and Computing, which now share in the communal project of interconnecting, teaching and supporting our information and technological resources. At this juncture, there seems little point in redesigning the administrative structures that oversee these areas because new relationships and responsibilities have evolved organically, based on need, demand, and interest and will continue to do so. While the Library and Media Services collaborate, as a matter of course, with Academic Computing, the real challenge remains: How to more thoroughly engage the teaching faculty across the curriculum in defining the role of information technology in the academic careers of our students.

As discussed above, library and information resources and the teaching faculty assure that information technology infuses the curriculum.  On the other hand, the faculty has not embraced any particular set of information technology skills as fundamental to the liberal arts undergraduate at Evergreen. Instead, faculty choose and adapt information and media technologies according to the pedagogical and disciplinary requirements of their chosen inquiry. There is little work across the curriculum about critical approaches to media or basic definitions of college level technical literacy for the liberal arts. In the immediate future, library and information resources should invite the teaching faculty into a discussion about whether the campus has any broad consensus about ITL, including critical approaches. Long ago, the college committed to writing across the curriculum and allocated significant institutional resources to encourage that work—without proscriptive limits or standards.  A wider discussion about ITL could produce a similar vision and institutional support.  In the long run, such a vision will shape our understanding of digital scholarship in the liberal arts.

The shift of some entry-level media production instruction to from Media Services to Academic Computing raises questions about the staffing assumptions in Academic Computing. If critical approaches to information technology are to be addressed and if cross-curricular information technology literacy is a priority for the contemporary liberal arts, then instructional staffing based on historical models of canned skills workshops may be insufficient. Academic Computing needs to be staffed sufficiently with instructors who have both time and expertise to work intensively in program planning, curriculum development, as well as technical skills development, as has historically been the case in the Library and Media Services.

==Information Collections and Services==

===Description of Information Collections & Services===

The academic community views the Library as a center for teaching, which means that collections and resources reflect the curriculum. In fact, all of Library services are defined by the fluidity of interdisciplinary and individual study.  The Dean of Library Services strengthens the ties between Academics and Library and Media Services through meeting weekly with the Provost, Associate Vice President for Academic Budget and Planning and the Academic Dean of Budget and the weekly Academic Deans meeting. Every other week, the Director of Computing & Communications and the Manager of Academic Computing also join the Academic Deans meeting.

The library faculty develops collections to support the changeable and interdisciplinary curriculum without the usual structure of departmental allocations. The librarians build collections and vendor profiles on the basis of their own teaching, governance, knowledge of the teaching faculty, and affiliation with planning units. [Exhibit: list of librarian and staff dtf assignments].  The faculty at large develops the curriculum in planning units and at retreats, an ongoing process that is not subject to formal managerial or committee review. Because they participate actively in the curriculum planning process, the librarians know how to build relevant collections. This process is strengthened by faculty who rotate into the library and lavish their attention on areas of the collection related to their disciplinary expertise.  Finally, librarians honor most initial requests for additions to the collection, working from the assumption that free inquiry and individual research are central to the library’s mission.  

In the past, the Library has struggled to satisfy incidental research demands outside the boundaries defined by the evolving curriculum, especially requests for more specialized materials.  Consortial services made efficient because of new technologies have changed all this.  Currently, almost all book requested generated by the individualistic interests of students working on independent projects can be supplied through the SUMMIT system, which includes over 30 academic library collections from Oregon and Washington, all available within two or three days.  Many specialized materials are also now supplied by periodicals databases, which have expanded eight to nine times over the self-study period.  Consortial purchases have reduced per-title costs dramatically. Finally, ILLiad, the on-line interlibrary loan system, brings journal articles to the mailboxes and email accounts of students within days (or even hours) of ordering. There are almost no discernible limits to accessing published information for any researcher except those who need to present within 24 hours. Nevertheless, Orbis-Cascade, the umbrella consortium which administers SUMMIT, is exploring collaborative collection development to ensure both the depth of the shared collections and the appropriate coverage of local collections.  

=====Support for Freely Chosen Intensive Media Production=====

Like the Library, Media Services serves the entire academic community, from programs to individuals. And, like the library, Media Services strains under the pressure of answering the needs of freely chosen independent study as well as a fluid curriculum.  Students working on independent media productions compete with Expressive Arts programs over scarce resources, from equipment to laboratories to teaching staff.  In order to balance these competing demands, Media Services requires students and faculty to submit Media Request Forms, which are reviewed by the Media Services Manager and the Head of Instruction Media, who allocate resources, both human and technological.  Individual Contract forms include a checkmark for special equipment or facilities, and the academic deans who review the forms use this as a safety net for screening intensive media use.  In these ways Media Services assures that students who embark on media studies do so with the appropriate support. The Expressive Arts planning unit also instituted a Student Originated Studies (SOS) group contract in media in order to assure that students have more consistent access to facilities and instructional support as they pursue their independent projects.  

=====Service Desks and Facilities=====

Government Documents, Periodicals, the Sound and Image Library (SAIL), Circulation, Media Loan, Photo Services, including Photoland (Instructional Photo), and Electronic media all have public services desks which provide access to collection and/or allow patrons to schedule lab space, reserve equipment, and ask for technical help.  From anywhere on campus, faculty can phone EM for assistance in using classroom technologies.  For a complete list of information desks see Appendix III.  For a complete list of major labs see Appendix IV.

=====The Information Technology Wing=====

Library and information resources networking actively across academic and administrative departmental boundaries. With the generic library as a foundation and the interdisciplinary curriculum as the context, merged collections and services build upon an alternative past. The major remodel planned and implemented during the self-study period substantially strengthened opportunities for networking services, facilities and staff. One central, broad entrance provides access to the Library, the Computer Center, Media Loan and the stairs to Electronic Media, Photo Services and Computing and Communications.  A large staircase which hides this entrance from the view of individuals entering the building is being removed in the current, second phase of the library building remodel.

The remodel was shaped by a communal commitment to teaching and interdisciplinary study. Collaborative study spaces predominate, whether open area study tables, grouped lounge furniture, pod-shaped arrangements in labs or small group study and media viewing rooms. Wireless access (almost ubiquitous on campus now) allows informal group work around personal or library-owned laptops. Additional laboratory spaces provide easier scheduling for program work and more computers for individuals when classes do not use the labs. Limited quiet study areas provide an alternative for the solitary scholar, but group work is the norm and encouraged.  

Art exhibitions invite patrons into lounge and study areas and help define the library as a public space.  The new basement lounge, affectionately dubbed the Library Underground, hosts frequent campus gatherings and public readings, although flooding (a new issue since the remodel) has seriously disrupted the area.  Groups from across campus meet and teach in library spaces, which are open to all.. The media collections are prominently located in the reference area, where SAIL staff work closely with the reference librarians.  Contiguous with SAIL is the Assisted Technology Lab, an emerging resource that has become a vital meeting place for students to work but also to show their art and media productions.  Again, SAIL and reference staff provide service and technical support for ATL patrons.  As the physical reference collection continues to shrink, reference, SAIL, the ATL, and circulation will merge to form a more cohesive unit with a prominent public presence.  Overall, the Information Technology Wing has shed  barren hallways and utilitarian desks in favor of lounge areas and comfortable study spaces. Wireless connections, our collection of laptop computers, overstuffed couches and chairs, large tables, task lighting, and spacious collections all contribute to the spirit of conviviality that informs the work of shared inquiry.

=====Blending Lab Facilities=====

Some specialty labs have self-contained resources, such as large format printers and applications requiring more sophisticated hardware. However, the primary distinction among labs is the level of expertise and specialized knowledge of the staff. Students benefit when they know that the specialized character of a lab means there will be more skilled assistance as well.

=====Planning=====

The Information Technology Collaborative Hive (ITCH) provides the most formal mechanism for collaboration around technology across the various parts of the college. Evergreen supports three ITCH groups: Academic, Administrative, and Core. The Academic ITCH meets at least once a month and includes professional staff from each of the primary technology labs, faculty, and interested students. The Academic ITCH coordinates general academic IT initiatives, helps develop general academic computing policy, and guides strategic planning. Professional staff members in each of the primary technology areas have developed strong connections to discipline-specific slices of the curriculum, faculty and academic administration. As ITCH develops, the members will explore ways to communicate and plan in cross-disciplinary and cross-divisional programs. ITCH provides one of the necessary cross-curricular and cross-division contexts for developing information technology across administratively distinct areas.

===Analysis & Assessment of Information Services and Collections===

=====Library and Computer Center Use & Satisfaction Rates=====

Although library and information resources provide a wide array of services, the question still remains whether the services are effective. Surveys of popularity (frequency of use and satisfaction with use), provide some insight.  Institutional Research routinely surveys alumni and students about campus resources. Over time, responses regarding the Library and Computer Center have been strikingly positive. Students reported the Library and Computer Center among the most highly used services or facilities, with high user satisfaction levels as well. Library use rates were 99% in 1998; 97% in 2002; 97% for on campus users and 94.2% for off campus students in 2004.  User satisfaction rates were 75.5% somewhat or very satisfied in 1998 and 85% somewhat or very satisfied in 2002. The student experience survey (ESES) of 2006 reports that 95% of respondents use the library.  Computer Center users were 94% of respondents in 1998, 96% in 2002 and 92% for on campus students and 93.4% for off campus students in 2004. In the 2006 student experience survey, 88.5% of students reported using the computer center.

Despite the radically changing information environment, the physical library has experienced only a slight reduction in use: 4% from 1998 to 2006. The Computer Center also has enjoyed heavy use over time, with some reduction in 2006 as more and more students use their own laptops on campus; the survey that year showed that 91% of students have their own computers. Satisfaction rates for the Library and Computer Center remain the highest for any services on campus.

Starting in 2006, the ESES included questions about using library resources online and found that 85.2% of respondents use online library resources.  Internal records also suggest phenomenal growth in online use of library resources.  In 2000, when the library subscribed to three aggregate databases (Proquest, Ebscohost and JSTOR), users conducted 80,000 searches.  In 2006, with approximately 30 subscription databases, there were more than 262,677 searches. Careful review of variations of use from year to year reveals the direct impact a fluid curriculum has on database use.  For example, Modern Language Association International Bibliography statistics are quite erratic; one major project in a large academic program explains a five-fold increase of use in one year. As JSTOR has developed into a more deeply and broadly multi-interdisciplinary tool, use statistics show a shift away from heavy dependence on the less scholarly aggregates.  Extensive lobbying by faculty and librarians encourages this shift toward use of scholarly resources such as JSTOR.

=====Media Services User Surveys=====

ESES also surveyed students about their use of Media Services, which showed 48% use of Media Loan and 89.6% somewhat or very satisfied.  This data has been supplemented by Media Services staff member, Lin Crowley, who surveyed campus members about their use of Media Services for a Masters in Public Administration project. Crowley designed her project to include use statistics and user satisfaction. Crowley’s respondents reported an average satisfaction level for each service ranging from 3.07 to 3.62 (out of 4), which indicated that those who used current services were generally fairly satisfied with each of the services that they use.

Although respondents to Crowley’s survey were predominantly active Media Services users, many respondents were uninformed about some media services.  Respondents supported investment in new digital technologies, but most were unaware of new or planned digital facilities.  One clear conclusion of the survey is that visibility and access could be better for some media services.  For instance, suggested improvements often focussed on access, whether longer hours, more workshops or more facilities. The survey project director recommended that future follow-up surveys be conducted to compare whether the reasons people use each service change and to evaluate the satisfaction levels for each type of services by patron types. [Exhibit: Crowley. Media Service Survey]

=====Comparing Use Statistics With Other Libraries=====

[[Image:Summit copy.gif]]

The Evergreen community adapted quickly to SUMMIT because the library, with its strong connections to faculty and the curriculum, communicated effectively about the service, showcasing the new service in the many instructional sessions typical of any Fall quarter. Lower early use rates at other institutions may be partially the result of staff deliberately implementing the service at a more measured pace. On the other hand, the Evergreen Circulation department chose to implement SUMMIT at full force, successfully assuming the institutional impact of this significant change and assuring success.

National library statistics for 2004 provide the opportunity to compare liberal arts college use statistics with those of small masters level universities (Carnegie Class Masters I), with surprising results. The most basic level of use which is collected is gatecount: How many people entered the library?  Evergreen’s average gate count per FTE was 1.8, Masters universities were at 1.4 and Liberal arts colleges averaged 2.77.  At the next, more engaged level of library use, the patron checks out a book.  At the third level, the patron identifies materials from libraries beyond his own and requests an interlibrary loan (ILL).  These last two levels of service are confused within the SUMMIT consortium (and perhaps other nationally) because the books borrowed from another library may be counted as either circulations or interlibrary loans.  Thus, these two categories of use must be combined. The comparisons speak to Evergreen library’s dynamic patronage: students borrow (via ILL and circulation) an average of 36 items, while the masters level institutions borrow only 1.55, and the liberal arts colleges nationally borrow an average of 34.

The same dramatic distinction between liberal arts colleges and universities appears in the SUMMIT consortium, which covers a full gamut of colleges and universities in Oregon and Washington. Following is a chart which ranks the top 15 of the 31 libraries in the region based upon their rates of use of SUMMIT. Evergreen places high on the list, among the most highly ranked liberal arts colleges, all well above usage rates at more comprehensive institutions.

{| cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="1"

| Library

| # Items borrowed

| FTE

| Items/FTE

| Reed

| G. Fox U.

| Marylhurst

| Lewis/Clark

| '''TESC'''

| Whitman

| Willamet

| UPS

| Seattle Pacific

| Western Ore.

| U Portland

| U Oregon

| E. Ore. U.

| Pacific U.

Looking at national data, the following table compares the averages of various commonly used Evergreen peer groups:

|-

| '''TESC'''

| '''1.81'''

|-

| 2.85

| 4.20

| 2.03

| 1.74

Evergreen students use their library in ways that reflect a strong commitment to the practices of liberal arts colleges.  Colleges that significantly surpass Evergreen’s use rates often require significant student project work such as a senior thesis project. For instance, Reed College shows 120 items per student and New College of Florida, 89.

=====Comparing IT Facilities with Other Institutions=====

The information technology consultant Edutech compared Evergreen’s budget for IT with peer institutions. Edutech compared Evergreen to similar schools on the basis of physical environment, enrollment numbers, education goals and aspirations, residential nature, tuition, and governance structure and determined that Evergreen devotes considerable resources to IT and is consistent with its peers in that regard. In 2005, Evergreen’s expenditure on IT—expressed as a percentage of total institutional expenditures—was 6.7%.  This percentage aligns with the 6.7% reported by Computing in a 2006 survey of public four-year colleges. The average for all institutions was 6.5%.

Among the organizations included in library and information resources, the Library is the largest and most embedded in professional traditions and may be the most invested in preexisting structures and assumptions.  How well does the Library balance the competing demands of conservation, teaching, and technological adaptation and innovation?  As librarians rotate into the full-time curriculum, they temporarily leave behind reference work, management, administration, and collection development.  Any sustained work, such as web-page development, is interrupted by these regular absences. On the other hand, full-time teaching faculty rotate into library as neophytes who need training and who present with widely disparate skills, abilities, and ambitions. Beyond the system of rotation—with its concomitant duties-- librarians are contractually obligated to participate in college governance, curriculum planning, not to mention their own scholarly projects and sabbaticals. Further, librarians have nine-month contracts and are often absent during the  summer sessions when the Library is minimally staffed.  These organizational facts  mean that Evergreen has no managerial class of librarians.  Instead, the team of faculty librarians  share management with staff. Paraprofessionals head almost all departments, including Government Publications, Periodicals, Technical Services, and Acquisitions.  Their year-round presence and regular workdays provide consistency for development of services, maintenance of collections, public service, and supervision of both classified staff and students workers. In this collaborative environment, staff often lead the way in adopting new services.  The tremendous commitment by the staff grounds the Library and makes it an ideal teaching environment. The success of the Library’s flat organization can be measured by the impressive way in which the Library group has responded to institutional and profession-wide changes and challenges.  Appendix IV lists major changes in services, faculties and collections implemented during the study period—most responding to opportunities provided by technological developments.

=====Conclusion: Assessing Library and Information Resources Collections and Services=====

Library and information resources has been deeply influenced by the organizational habits of the college, habits of collaboration, egalitarian ideals, fluidity, face-to-face interactions, non-departmentalization, and interdisciplinary inquiry. The result is a responsive, flexible, evolving set of services and resources. Library and information resources faculty and staff work across the digital divide, regardless of where services reside administratively, in order to fuse traditional library services, information services, computing, and media. Library and information resources assess technology within the context of Evergreen’s particular curriculum and implement new applications incrementally in collaborative processes involving all three areas of service and the teaching faculty. As part of that work, library and information resources have had the distinct historical advantage of presuming that information comes in all formats and that it is not only possible but advisable to break down as many barriers as possible to access information in all its forms. In this, library and information resources are shaped by their founding vision, the generic library, an idea whose time is come.

===Future Aspirations and Challenges for Collections and Services===

====Continue Blending More Functions within Library and Information Resources====

Library and information resources support a surprisingly diverse infrastructure of technologies and media in the curriculum.  For greatest efficiency, library and information resources should considered even more coordination across boundaries to provide technology support. Students should be able to move seamlessly between different areas, such as CAL, MML, and the Computer Center. Certainly, the pathways between areas could be more clearly articulated by identifying and developing more common services, including printing, building and maintaining image sets, server filespace, and common software. By taking better advantage of the network infrastructure, students will experience less confusion, and IT staff who directly support the curriculum could dedicate more energy toward coordinating, developing and designing IT strategies with academic programs instead of maintaining redundant infrastructures.

Library and information resources need to develop a shared perspective about their public presence.  One possibility for representing the blended facilities and services is a central help desk for the information technology wing. Once the central staircase is removed, the shared entrance to the wing will become a prominent architectural feature and an opportunity to reshape the community’s understanding of what the areas collectively represent. A central help desk could provide basic information about facilities, services, and staff, and it would help facilitate how efficiently patrons move between the various floors of the wing. Continued attention to the best use of the Library Underground and how to assure its connection to other floors should be part of this process; a large, flexible teaching and gathering space is developing there and appropriate equipment will be needed to support that vision.  Concurrently, assuring safe conditions for the adjacent Archives and Rare Books Collections are critical.

Construction of the Center for New Media will begin soon.  This project has distinct relevance to the changing roles of Media Services, the Library and Academic Computing within the evolving digital liberal arts. The CNM will comprise a collection of media production studios and equipment to complement and complete existing Media Services and Academic Computing media resources and provide the primary bridge between the campus media infrastructure and networked digital resources. For a discussion of the CNM and related curricular projects see Appendix V.

The last self-study emphasized the library audio/visual collection.  Since then, one-time funds have frequently been infused, and the collection has grown significantly. SAIL staff and selectors have emphasized both new titles and replacement of older formats and worn copies.  The library anticipates circulating the collection through SUMMIT, which will increase wear.

[[Image:.wmz|384px]]

Selectors should still have the recently implemented opportunity to purchase various formats from their funds for print monographs if desired, but a stable and larger allocation for the SAIL budget would lessen the need to do so and reduce variations in expenditures, workload and processing. During Winter of 2008, the reference group will review the materials budgets with the intention of reallocating funds according to the curricular demands for video and digitized reference resources. If these discussions result in a larger budget for SAIL, there will be more work. Additionally, the staff will be more deeply involved in researching web-based media collections. This additional workload much be addressed. This digital collection development process will go forward in concert with the push to digitize archival collections, including photographs, video, and copies of faculty artwork.  The Center for New Media will take the lead in this ongoing project.  

The library will continue to take advantage of the significantly increased purchasing power created by consortial agreements for periodical and other database purchases. The library needs to keep an eye on the time and expertise necessary to keep up with the ever-increasing work of evaluating these agreements, purchases and contracts and the technical work to support electronic resources and may want to consider creating a position for managing electronic resources.  A centralized specialist working on electronic resources would potentially help the selectors, by consistently researching and disseminating information about new products.

Overall, long-standing assumptions about budgets for collections must be re-evaluated.  While major cuts were made to the monographic budget early in the study period and were only partially restored over time, it is not clear that simply restoring those funds and adding funds for inflation are the desirable next moves.  The Resource Selection Committee will need to continue to explore more flexible responses to a rapidly changing publishing environment in order to match collection budgets to evolving research needs.

While the Edutech report gave Evergreen good marks for its budgetary support of information technology, the report also recommended that “to follow current best practices, the replacement cycle should be permanently funded and the operations budgets need to be raised regularly to reflect the increase in technology-equipped classrooms, the increased number of servers and desktop computers that must be supported, and other increases in the technology base.”  The college has begun to address this issue, proposing permanent line items in the next biennium for replacing the core server and desktops. This movement toward more permanent allocations for replacement and repair will help ensure that the infrastructure can support the curriculum. Although ITCH can play only an advisory role, it has participated actively in the process of establishing permanent allocations, setting priorities, and sharing resources.  

The remodeled Information Technology Wing and the construction of Seminar II created dramatically more technology-equipped teaching spaces. There are now 49 media and computer-capable classrooms. Labs are equipped with computers for each student, and most classrooms now include a computer along with projection and display systems. The library plans to convert one classroom in the Library Underground to a lab, and teaching spaces on campus still without computers or display technology, such as the Arts Annex, should be equipped. At this point, library and information resources can adequately support the computer facilities distributed across campus, but that’s about it. As more spaces are computerized and enrollment creeps up toward the target of 5,000, the college will have to add additional resources—human and technological.  

As media technology has changed, some faculty choose to continue teaching older analog equipment, often for good pedagogical and aesthetic reasons. This generates a daunting task for Media Loan as they stretch to maintain, house, and teach a very wide array of portable equipment. Media Loan should work with the Expressive Arts faculty and other major users to reduce the range of Media Loan equipment necessary to support the curriculum.

===Appendix I: Information Technology Literacy as reported in End of Program Reports===

The survey asks faculty to describe their inclusion of information technology in programs.  While the descriptions and definitions are idiosyncratic, it is still possible to track patterns of technology use across planning units. The table below portrays response rates for information technology sorted into five categories and organized by planning unit or interdisciplinary status (core and interarea programs). Other than library research, the categories distinguish between in-depth disciplinary tools used almost exclusively by one or two planning units (media production and specialized scientific applications) and more basic, cross-curricular entry-level tools which might reasonably be taught in a wide array of contexts (presentation media and basic computer applications such as Excel, social software or courseware, or simple webpage creation). The two categories of cross-curricular tools (presentation media and basic computer applications), might be considered common components of basic information technology.  Extremely widely utilized applications such as word processing are not considered at all, as they are nearly ubiquitous and thus rarely appeared in the reports.

| valign="bottom" nowrap="undefined" colspan="4" | End of Year Program Reviews: ITL

| valign="bottom" nowrap="undefined" | # programs

| valign="bottom" nowrap="undefined" colspan="3" | Spec. Comp.

| valign="bottom" nowrap="undefined" colspan="6" | *Includes Powerpoint, Illustrator; manipulated playback

| valign="bottom" nowrap="undefined" colspan="11" | **Includes Excel, classroom management applications, program blogs, tserv, webpages

What emerges from this study is a picture of how faculty teach or include  information technology literacy according to the content of their programs. Clearly, no single definition of appropriate information technology literacy applies across any significant portion of the curriculum. The data provides some insight into how students develop information technology experience at a college where there are no requirements or ITL standards. What follows is a summary of the various emphases and interests in information technology expressed through end-of-program reports, with an emphasis on planning units and curricular structures:

Predictably, the CTL      planning unit reported the least involvement with information technology,      even including library research. At 39% of programs reporting      library research, CTL is lowest of all planning units except      SI. More unexpectedly, CTL reports media production work at      19%, which is higher than either presentation technology or other forms of     basic computer use. Obviously, a significant portion of CTL faculty      focus on close reading and thoughtful engagement with assigned texts,      avoiding the search for external authorities. They also are more likely to      use media production as a vehicle for storytelling, analogous to texts.

SI also places less frequent emphasis on library research, with 35% of programs reporting involvement. Perhaps original research—fieldwork and labs-- might supplant an emphasis on library research in some programs.  The culture of the science planning unit may also presume that students are able to independently research their topics.

Despite a strong      focus on non-scholarly and non-print texts and expression, Expressive Arts      nevertheless works with library research in a respectable 43% of programs.  

Core programs, where      one might expect strong emphasis on basic academic skills development,      report only 55% engagement in library research.

 

 

Inter-area programs,     on the other hand, have the highest attention to research, at 63%

 

A different picture emerges when planning units were surveyed about their use of more specialized media production and computer applications. That is, 63% of expressive arts programs report use of media production; and 48% of SI programs report use of specialized computer applications.  Not surprisingly, SI reports 4% use of media production while expressive arts reports 0% scientific applications. There is modest use of media production in other areas (19% in CTL; 13% in SPBC) and almost no use of specialized computer applications in planning units outside of SI and EA.

 

 

To summarize, planning units show clear preferences.  For instance, SI focuses heavily on a combination of presentation media (often Illustrator posters) at 46% and on specialized computing with less use or at least less mention of more basic computer applications.  ES and SPBC are the most balanced in use of basic information technology tools.  ES uses presentation media heavily (49%) and a fair amount of basic computer applications (39%).  SPBC also uses presentation media in a substantial number of programs (38%) with basic computing in 29%.  EA reports 26% of each basic technology, showing a commitment to using many types of information technology.

 

The interdivisional curriculum and the broad EWS programs show a different pattern. With a more distributed student body and with shorter class sessions concentrated in off-hours, EWS strongly depends on basic computing to support communication outside of the classroom (46%).  Surprisingly, Core reports low use of presentation media (18%) and modest use of basic computing (29%).  Inter-area programs are a bit more ambitious, with 26% use of presentation media and 22% use of basic computing, although media production is fairly well represented in inter-area programs at 39%.

Overall, 42% percent of programs work in both presentation media and basic computing. In general, this work happens more in advanced curriculum than at Core, where faculty focus on basic reading and interpretation.  On the other hand inter-area programs provide more opportunities  to develop a wider range of IT skills, presumably because students are better prepared and more experienced. A significant majority of programs use media and computing information technologies, from general to specialized applications.

Off-campus programs are not represented in the table, although they were surveyed about how they used information technology as a tool for communicating and for accessing academic resources. When Tribal programs were asked, “To what extent has your Evergreen experience contributed to your growth . . .  using computer technology to present work, find information or solve problems, students responded, "Quite a bit" 44.8% of the time. In stark contrast, all other categories of students ranked computer use as last or 20th of 24 categories [Exhibit: http://www.evergreen.edu/institutionalresearch/studentexperiencesurvey2006responses.htm  question 19]as a skill developed at Evergreen.  

Presumably, students in more conventional settings feel that they come to college with their use of computers well established, or they developed their use outside of the curriculum. In addition, a larger percentage of faculty teaching off-campus programs leverage the on-line collaboration tools such as Learning Management Systems (LMS) and eportfolios to facilitate communication within the planning unit outside of class time. This brings a technology focus to the forefront for off-campus students.  The Tacoma program, which reports out as a single program, but represents many tracks for hundreds of students, always includes a research and a media production component.

How does this spread of information technology instruction and use across the curriculum correlate to the teaching and support provided by library instruction? Library workshops for 2003 through 2007 show that although Core program focus is not particularly frequent (55%) compared to much of the curriculum, yet library faculty work heavily with that part of the curriculum.  Librarians gave workshops to 40 core programs over the time period, the highest commitment other than to EWS, with its very high number of individual programs and classes.  Thus while library research may not be as heavily covered in the Core curriculum as might be expected, faculty in core teams are reaching out for assistance in this aspect of the work very actively and the library is providing strong support.

Inter-area and social science curricula are also well supported by library instruction with 26 and 22 programs served.  Self-reported library research in programs (63% and 60%)correlates well to library-based instruction.  Thus while one might expect that interarea programs are able to include more information technology in their programs, this is not simply because students are already prepared or assumed to be prepared in basic skills such as library research. There might also be recognition that library research at the core level will be very different from what is expected in subsequent years.

The science and environmental studies curriculum show lower use of library instruction, with 12 and 15 programs requesting workshops. CTL, an area which reported comparatively little use of library research in programs, also utilized very little library instruction: librarians provided workshops to only four CTL programs.

Following is a description of the major information technology facilities supporting academic work.

[[http://www2.evergreen.edu/wikis/computing/index.php?title=Category:Computing_on_Campus]]

[Provide map of labs at least in library building]

Academic Computing operates the Computer Center located adjacent to the campus library. Media Loan is adjacent in the Information Technology wing. The Computer Center includes a large unscheduled, general access space plus four teaching labs, including two Windows classrooms, a Macintosh classroom, an Advanced Computing Classroom (ACC), each seating 25 students.  Five academic computing staff manage the center and provide instructional and faculty support broadly across the curriculum, as described under teaching and instruction above.

The Academic Division operates the Computer Applications Lab or CAL, also known as Scientific Computing, located in Lab II, site of most of the campus laboratory facilities and dedicated science classrooms.  The Computer Applications Lab is operated by two full time staff plus 8-10 student workers and is equipped with 50 PC’s, 8 laptops, 2 macbooks, and 4 Power Mac G5 workstations. The CAL features two independent teaching spaces each with 25 PC’s and projection. In addition to general computing software (MS Office, OpenOffice, Adobe Suite, IE, Firefox), the CAL hosts and provides support for a range of scientific software including GIS (ArcInfo), math (MathCad, Mathematica), statistics (R, SPSS, PC Ord, Kaleidagraph) genetics and chemical modeling (CN3D, Mega, Chemdraw) and programming (Labview, Python, .Net,) software. The CAL supports faculty, staff, and students working in the physical and environmental sciences.  Strategic planning and integration with the curriculum occurs primarily through discussions with individual science faculty, curriculum deans, the Environmental Sciences (ES) and Scientific Inquiry (SI) planning units.

-The Multimedia Lab, a specialty lab that supports the media arts, offering resources for non-linear video editing, audio multi-tracking, 2-D animation, web design, graphical programming environments and 3-D modeling. The applications t includes Final Cut Pro, DVD studio Pro, Photoshop, Dreamweaver, IDVD, IMovie, Bias Peak, Digital Performer, Maya, MAX/MSP/Jitter and other media specific utilities and authoring environments. The area is supported with a full time staff, student intern and 10 student lab aides all trained in the software.

-Similar applications reside in the 2 24-hour access Non-Linear Video Editing suites.

-The Audio Mixing Benches are computer suites optimized for audio mixing, production, MIDI sequencing and composition. They are equipped with audio peripherals, keyboards, and full bandwidth speakers.

-The 5.1 Mix suite is an audio production facility for mixing in surround (5.1) audio formats for multimedia and DVD audio authoring. It has the highest resolution audio interfaces, and specialized software for creating many formats.

There are additional facilities in the Communication Lab building across campus managed by Electronic Media, Including;

-The two Eight track and single Sixteen track recording studios, with an excellent cross section of analog audio signal control and routing systems and computer based multi-tracking and music sequencing/composition software.

- The four Music Technology Labs, again with excellent analog and digital synthesis peripherals, recording and monitoring systems, and complete computer based editing, sequencing, synthesis and analysis applications.