Attendees

• Nicole DeSarno

• Courtney Eger (notetaker)

• Darla Himeles

• Josue Hurtado

• Tom Ipri

• Sarah Jones

• Vitalina Nova

• Caitlin Shanley

Agenda

1. Debrief from 4/15 LSS Forum

2. Update on instruction materials repository (Nicole)

Notes

1. Debrief from 4/15 LSS Forum

   1. 13 attendees plus team members (19 participants)

   2. Feedback: Attendee liked the format; that people could share in the small groups; another small group shared a lot but did not want to share out in the main group; liked having a timed breakout room (knowing there’d be an end point to wrap up); liked the Rose/Thorn/Bud activity

   3. For future: Consider having 2 breakout room activities, or mixing up the groups so you can have the same conversation with different people

   4. Activity idea for the future: the first person who answered a question then had to call on another person to give an answer, and so on down the line (forcing participation)

   5. Next forum: setting program outcomes

   6. Thoughts about the end of the session, where nobody offered feedback on other ways our group can help them

      1. Review the LSSSSTening tour notes and use some of the ideas there for prompts

      2. Nobody offered feedback on office hours; hold on those for now

2. Update on instruction materials repository

   1. Proposed rules

      1. For everyone, probably mostly used by LRS librarians

      2. Internal use

      3. Would contain public-facing content (something you could teach/give to student, faculty, etc.) vs internal knowledge base/training materials (ie teaching a librarian how to use Zoom)

      4. Everything added should be in an editable format 

         1. Do not edit/modify the original; download or copy it and then edit

      5. If something needs an update, work with the original creator to process the update

      6. We will need a process for how to alert users that an item was updated

         1. Could we have a digest a couple of times each year to share what’s new and what’s been updated (could also serve as a reminder for the repository)

      7. Should there be an approval process when an item is submitted? IE our team would approve/moderate what’s coming into the repository

         1. Agreed we do not need an approval process 

         2. If overwhelmed we could institute a limit on how many items are being shared per month

         3. Could we provide a checklist for what we need before an item is submitted?

            1. If there’s a question about, say, accessibility, it would trigger someone from our team to review and help address the issue

            2. Model this Google Form: LibGuide Publication Checklist and Submission Form

      8. Question about making sure items are accessible 

         1. Infographics, images: need alt text

         2. If something is not fully accessible, provide a statement with an alternate format, etc.

   2. Box repository page

      1. Can upload Microsoft documents as well as Google docs

      2. Arranged by type of instructional topic, then by level (beginner to advanced)

      3. Would need to contact ITS if we needed more specific templates

      4. Can add keywords to each document; then you could search for a keyword and discover artifacts

      5. You can add a ReadMe file and provide more description there

      6. Suggestion about mapping to Undergrad or Grad content

      7. Be clear that when we say ‘subject,’ we don’t mean discipline

      8. Editors on Box have right to create folders

   3. 
      
      

Action Items

1. Nicole will revise the rules; create a guide to using Box; create a publication checklist

2. Nicole will share the Box repository link with the team