I was glad to hear others have similar thoughts as me at today's Closing Session - OK lets get started! I am not suggesting that we did not work hard already, but the group has really learned a lot and are eager to look to the future now.

I was amazed how much beyond a "workshop" that this ALA Library 2.0 Bootcamp developed. Beyond just looking at the technology from a hands-on playground, the group flushed out much more about user expectations, organizational implementation, online/social implementation, etc.

The work products of the ten teams were amazing for "virtually" working on the topics, while potentially many of the participants were exploring these 2.0 technologies for the first times themselves.

I think we only can see the tip of the iceberg right now after our 6-weeks of collaboration, but ALA cannot avoid the collision with Web 2.0 that we have created. There comes a time when people must realize that we do not always need to avoid every collision, because the past principles and the future technologies can blend to meet the needs of today. ALA and all libraries can be great leaders in pushing not just the technology of Web 2.0 but the principles of collaboration, social interaction, and the user's control of their experience.

One thing I hope this exploration demonstrated to ALA and the membership is how much work can be accomplished outside the traditional face-to-face meetings of conferences. It appears from the discussions and team projects that we can be seeing an amazing transformation in ALA and libraries in general in how business is conducted, how users are reached, and how ALL people can contribute to an organization's success and resources.

I look forward to continue growing the relationships I developed, and helping in anyway I can to continue this wonderful process.

PDF Download

Word Download

We will be issuing a summary document shortly with more details.

Second, the participants are at various levels of technology awareness and places in the career ladder. Some are spending more time learning the technology, while others may have been able to jump right into the provided information. There is nothing wrong with this. It reminds all of us, and as a result will be evident in the final outcomes, that our library users span the spectrum. It reminds all of us that not everyone learns the same way. It reminds us that not every process will work the first time for everyone, nor will every user do things the same way.

Technology
I think the problems we have had with implementation of various technologies only added to the learning environment. Since ALAL2 is a chance to "play" and share key learnings with ALA (or any information professional), I am glad the learning environment was not totally optimized and error-proof. As participants, we needed to make errors and run into road blocks so that we could totally be saturated in the project and make "real world" suggestions to other information professionals. Someone even suggested the the technologies and instruction methods be tried on others first. BUT, as participants in ALAL2, we are the "others" - the first. It is our responsibility to define what does and does not work, not just "play" with the optimized or ALA-selected way of doing things.

In addition, I have been trying to look at some of the technologies, processes, and discussions from a user's perspective. No matter what library's decide to implement, there will always be patrons that disagree with the choices. We have experienced that in ALAL2 and again it is another reminder of the "real world".

Instructors (and librarians) constantly push their favorite tool or technology that works best for them. It is not until a user points out a problem or an alternative, that all the options might be totally obvious. Otter Group, Jenny, and Michael have molded the ALAL2 experience with the technologies that were best at the moment of its creation. They all have pushed us to try alternatives and bring recommendations to the overall group. Groups have discovered and utilized wikis, OPAL, and Skype just to name a few. A big part of ALA2 was exploration and the initial tools have not prevented that, but in some have pushed for exploration into alternatives.

Implementation
I am glad ALA decided to proceed this way. First, as with any large organization, an expected procedure or final product, get greater results than others. If this is ALA desired method of exploring Web 2.0 and its advantages for its membership, fine we did it their way. It allows the leadership of ALA to focus more on our outcomes rather than the implementation.

Second, the Otter Group has provided several advantages. Again, I will go back to "real world" scenarios. By having the Otter Group manage the technology, we have simulated a large number of the library organizations that utilize external IT support or are at the mercy of a larger organization's IT department. It cannot be any more "real world" than that. Second, I bet Jenny and Michael are learning more from the experience and able to add more to the final product by being active participants, rather the techies. Their knowledge is more valuable in the discussions than in teaching people to use a new form of technology.

My Conclusion
I guess this is one time where I was glad ALA was hands off and introduced as many variables as possible. It allows ALA's leadership to be a spectator, and learn from the discussion between ALAL2 participants and others following along. I think if ALA would have done it any other way, too many preconceived notions of the future of Web 2.0 within ALA would have crept into the picture and defined the experience. I think the implementation, the participants, and the freedom to adjust as needed has created a "real world" environment that has allowed us to be the test tubes for others.

I hope others are as eager as I to see the final suggestions and outcomes of ALAL2, and are optimistic that our hard work will lead into implementation within ALA and/or the organizations of its members.

Let me introduce the facility by sharing the mission:

The Mission of the Samuel B. and Marian K. Freedman Digital Library, Language Learning and Multimedia Services Center is to bring together
in one place a variety of technological resources in order that these
resources support and sustain learners and create new ways of teaching
and learning. The Freedman Center will be an innovative partner with
faculty, students, and staff in providing full-service digital library, language learning and multimedia services so that members of the Case community can achieve their research, scholarly, and artistic goals.

The Center offers plenty of equipment to be used in-house or for lending. Faculty, staff, or students can borrow digital voice recorders, miniDV video cameras, 5MP digital cameras, Apple iBooks, Garmin eTrex GPS Units, and jump drives.

Earlier I had mentioned the new podcasting studio, and Michael had asked for some more information. The Freedman Center was completed last summer and a studio was not in the original plans. As voice recordings were being made for podcasts and other presentations, it became apparent very quickly that some privacy was needed to produce high quality materials. A storage room was sacrificed and the podcasting studio was born.

The recording equipment includes a Alesis Multimix 8USB Mixer, 3 MXL-990 microphones, and a Heil PR-40 microphone. The mixer is great in that by allowing USB interface with a laptop and not being much bigger than a laptop, it allows for some portability. I shared a booth with the Freedman Center staff and a recent Research ShowCASE across campus. They conducted interviews from the booth and demonstrated the equipment and resources to faculty and students.

I will get some better pictures of the Freedman Center and the new podcasting studio, and share them here on my blog. I will also have a discussion about the new studio, how it is being used, and related policies. I will try to even record the discussion as a podcast and share it.

We just had our opening session for ALA Library 2.0, so lets look at the framework used. In my lists below, I will look at a need or trait as addressed by a technology and/or a meeting's structure.

Why the Opening Session Was NOT Library (Web) 2.0
Real-time Discussion
The chat function was not turned on within Microsoft LiveMeeting. Today, many people prefer to discuss items immediately as IM, chat functions built into web sites, cellular phones, and other technology push the desire to react to other's opinions. I think that the chat function in LiveMeeting is one-to-one, but I have seen other online meeting applications that allow the entire group to comment and
discuss without interrupting the speakers. I personally feel more
ownership and larger gains from a meeting, if I share in other's
perspectives and thoughts.

Lack of Mobility
By relying on audio provided by a telephone conference call, mobility was limited for most. If mobility was desired, the costs were pushed to the participants to utilize cellular phones or other fee-based technology. If the audio capabilities of LiveMeeting were utilized, those with high speed Internet and a microphone, could have participated directly from their computer, or in my situation laptop. My university's campus is wireless, so I would not have been forced to return to my office to gather and could have used the pre-meeting time more effectively.

Open Source/Free vs. Purchased Applications
By utilizing, Microsoft LiveMeeting artificial restrictions are placed on participants and organizations. Again, users are mobile and may not
have permission to install onto the computer being used. In addition,
should we pick applications that restrict users to a single web browser? If open source was used, could participants have conducted more customization to their view? Another consideration that an organization must rationalize is covering the costs for applications such as LiveMeeting, if "free" alternatives exist. Of course, we know nothing is totally free.

Lack of Immediate Results
People expect immediate results, such as a copy of their work. I was disappointed that we did not receive an immediate copy of the presentation, so that we could continue digesting the content. Do we hamper follow-up and discussion if content is delayed to the participants? How many people like to respond immediately versus those that respond days down the road?

User options/settings
The way LiveMeeting was configured and the nature of the presentation, very few options for customization were available. Maybe none were needed, but with 40+ participants, I am sure some people thought of some that would have been nice.

Collaboration
I am talking beyond the fact that a large group gathered for the opening session. Smaller groups were able to utilize CampFire to work on details. The telephone allowed for full group discussion (which was a poor answer to some of my concerns above, but maybe the best available at this time for this group).

Options
Participants did have some options. Some people may have chatted in the external CampFire application rather than watching a portion of the presentation (of course, ideally chat would have occurred within the LiveMeeting format). People may have left after hearing that the presentation would be made available at a later date as a podcast. I doubt anyone did leave though with all the interesting content and discussion.

Interaction & Sensory
Surveys, break away chats, phone comments, slide content, etc. People learn very different, and the combinations of technology developed to support Web 2.0 allows a larger pool of people to participate and benefit at the greatest level possible for each person.

Opportunities for Follow Up
With the blog system, CampFire chat, copy of the presentation, and recorded podcast, the learning and discussion is not limited to a short meeting. People can absorb the information at their own pace, and still play with everyone equally.

Ability to Overcome Technical Difficulties with Alternatives
I think this goes back to options. The newer generations are not locked into a single format of communication. As a result, the technologies that have developed have made it easier to overcome technical difficulties. Many more alternatives exist for the same or similar tasks.