This article was downloaded by: [Universitat Politècnica de València]On: 25 October 2014, At: 16:21Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

College & UndergraduateLibrariesPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wcul20

Creating CollaborativeWorkstations for Referenceand Public Use in AcademicLibrariesAlan W. Aldrich aa University of South Dakota ,Published online: 11 Oct 2008.

To cite this article: Alan W. Aldrich (2008) Creating Collaborative Workstations forReference and Public Use in Academic Libraries, College & Undergraduate Libraries,15:3, 364-377, DOI: 10.1080/10691310802258265

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10691310802258265

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,

and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 16:

21 2

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

OUTSTANDING IN THE FIELD

Creating Collaborative Workstationsfor Reference and Public Use in Academic

Libraries

Alan W. Aldrich

ABSTRACT. The current focus on libraries as place involves the collab-orative needs of library users for features such as movable furniture, groupwork areas, and amenities such as coffee shops. Additional attention needs tofocus on how the technology infrastructure can support collaborative workin academic libraries. The one-user-one-machine setup common in manyacademic libraries does not do this. A collaborative workstation that is in-expensive and readily assembled is described along with equipment needsand costs. The impact of such a collaborative workstation for both referencework and public use is discussed.

Alan W. Aldrich, MA, MLIS, is an assistant professor and instruction serviceslibrarian at the I. D. Weeks Library, University of South Dakota, Vermillion, SD57069 (E-mail: alan.aldrich@usd.edu).

Development of the collaborative workstation was supported by a faculty de-velopment grant from the Center for Teaching and Learning at the University ofSouth Dakota. Thanks to Carol Leibiger for her suggestions that improved boththis project and article.

364

College & Undergraduate Libraries, Vol. 15(3), 2008Available online at http://cul.haworthpress.com

C© 2008 by The Haworth Press. All rights reserved.doi: 10.1080/10691310802258265

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 16:

21 2

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

Outstanding in the Field 365

KEYWORDS. Collaboration, computer, library design, groups, referenceservice, collaborative workstations

One of the most exciting developments for academic libraries in recentyears is the attention being given to the library as place. This focus, drivenin part by an awareness that libraries are about more than just the storageand retrieval of books, is leading to the redesign of old spaces and thecreation of new ones that facilitate collaboration and learning among libraryusers (Freeman 2005; Peterson 2005). Learning, as well as its corollary,teaching, has a strong social component (Oblinger 2005, 15). Studentsoften engage with their peers when working on assignments or when theyparticipate in a work team or study group assigned to produce a paperor to generate an analysis. Library space designers have responded tostudents’ collaborative and social needs by providing furniture that is bothcomfortable and movable, study rooms, and amenities such as coffee shopsor snack bars.

In spite of such forward-thinking design, many libraries continue to over-look the fact that the collaboration taking place between group membersis often mediated or moderated by technology. Group members distributedacross different locations use technology to mediate their interactions,since all of their communication occurs through technology-based chan-nels. Distributed group members can choose synchronous or asynchronousinteraction as the situation dictates. Other groups, such as those who chooseto meet in the library, engage in collocated and synchronous interaction(Luce and Di Giacomo 2003, 141). Collocated groups consist of mem-bers situated in physical proximity to each other versus distributed groups,whose members occupy different physical locations. Technology moder-ates the interactions of collocated groups as they use online catalogs anddatabases to access and share information with each other.

A significant body of research has focused on the use of technologyto assist distributed users working either in synchronous or asynchronousmodes. However, there is much less research that focuses on the technolog-ical needs of collocated users working together. This is problematic sincethese users make extensive use of college and university library buildingsand resources. In addressing this gap in the library literature, the authorpresents a brief overview of design issues for technology in libraries andthen outlines the design and implementation of a collaborative computerworkstation that can be used as a reference desk instructional station oras a group workstation. Specific equipment requirements and approximatecosts are also identified.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 16:

21 2

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

366 COLLEGE & UNDERGRADUATE LIBRARIES

TECHNOLOGY DESIGN ISSUES IN LIBRARIES

The introduction of the personal computer in the 1980s establishedthe relationship between the user and computer as an individual one.This paradigm of one-user-one machine remains dominant today. Com-puter workstations in many libraries are set within individual computercarrels that function to reinforce the one-user-one-machine paradigm.Group or team members using library workstations have to clusteraround a single workstation with group members straining to see themonitor (Gabbard, Kaiser, and Kaunelis 2007, 6). The one-user-one-machine paradigm also raises control issues for the group, such as whocontrols the inputs. The leader of the group tends to have the posi-tion of privilege at the keyboard, acting as the information gatekeeper.Task domination by a single individual can and does occur even whenjust two users are sharing a single workstation (Kerwalla et al. 2006,194).

The one-user-one-machine paradigm is also problematic in the provisionof reference services. Reference is an activity that is inherently collabo-rative (Pomerantz 2006, 45), regardless of whether a librarian is helpinga patron to find specific information or providing instruction on how tosearch for information. Fields (2006, 415) points out that it is the socialinteraction of conversational give and take during a reference interview thatcontributes to successful problem solving. This give and take is limited tothe conversational interaction since the one-user-one-machine paradigmlocates control of input in the hands of the reference librarian. Some li-brarians manage this by rotating the monitor or keyboard so the user canobserve or provide direct input. However, the presumption of control restsdirectly with the reference librarian. The user occupies a passive role lim-ited to observing what the librarian does unless the librarian allows theuser to provide input.

Another key aspect of any reference encounter, especially when instruc-tion is involved, is the patron being able to model the search strategiesbeing demonstrated by the reference librarian. Patrons as learners need toperform the search behaviors themselves as much as is practical (Campbelland Fyfe 2002, 27). According to Twidale (2005, 530), “With any oper-ating system, a help-seeker may go to a help giver’s desk and receivean explanation that they understand, but then be confused that they can’treplicate the solution on their own machine.” The inability of patrons toactively model search strategies at the reference desk work station reducesthe opportunity for active learning. Patrons working in teams or groups

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 16:

21 2

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

Outstanding in the Field 367

and learners at the reference desk are not served well by the paradigm ofone-user-one machine that exists in libraries today.

Academic libraries are beginning to address the need for technology thatsupports the collaborative work and research done by their users. Com-puters with extra large flat-screen or plasma monitors are being providedalong with an impressive array of software and peripheral devices such ascameras (still and video), scanners, and recording equipment (microphonesand sound boards). These computers are often placed in specific rooms orspaces dedicated to collaborative use such as the University of North Car-olina Health Sciences Library’s “media kitchen” (Weismantel et al. 2006,19) or the Collaborative Technology Laboratories at Michigan State Uni-versity’s library (Barton and Weismantel 2007). Movable furniture allowsgroups to rearrange these spaces to accommodate their needs.

This approach of bundling related computer-based technology togetherin collaborative spaces raises several issues. First, many of these collabo-rative areas are designed for or favor media projects over other forms ofcollaborative work. The kinds of collaborative work being done in aca-demic libraries might involve media, but often the collaborative producttakes the form of a paper or analysis done by the group. Most of thetechnology remains unused and unneeded for such projects. Second, theequipment required for these collaborative areas is an expense that manylibraries cannot support within their operating budgets.

Neither the one-user-one-machine paradigm nor elaborately equippedmedia rooms serve academic library patron’s needs for group work and/orfor reference desk assistance. What is needed is an inexpensive and reli-able platform that allows multiple users who are physically collocated toprovide simultaneous joint input. Such a platform would have utility forboth group work and reference work. Academic libraries today need toconsider a blend of single-user and multiple-user workstations to meet thediverse needs of both patrons and librarians. The remaining sections of thisarticle describe the design, construction, and use of a multiuser worksta-tion to facilitate group work, whether by a student team writing a paper orreference librarians working with and instructing patrons on informationgathering.

IDENTIFYING THE NEED

The I. D. Weeks Library serves the University of South Dakota, one ofsix institutions of higher learning supported by the State of South Dakota.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 16:

21 2

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

368 COLLEGE & UNDERGRADUATE LIBRARIES

Each of these institutions competes for limited budget resources. Becauseof stagnant funding over the years, competition for these resources isincreasing a situation many academic libraries are facing. The directorof public services was aware of this context when recommending thatthe library redesign the main public access floor to accommodate morecollaborative learning. A key part of this recommendation was that wefind ways to make changes using resources already available to us. Whenour library director approved redesigning the library’s main floor, it wasunderstood that any changes had to provide maximum impact at the lowestpossible cost.

We began the redesign process by observing how students used thepublic spaces in the building. These observations included the forty-eightcomputer workstations located on the main floor near the reference deskstation. It became obvious after just a few days of observation that studentsworked both individually and in teams or small groups on our computers. Itwas equally obvious that our library did not support group work effectively,since each public workstation had its own carrel with just enough roomfor the monitor, keyboard, and mouse, leaving no room for even books ornotes. It was common to see pairs or small groups of students crowdedaround a single computer carrel as they worked on their projects. Twousers would sit side by side sharing the keyboard or groups of betweenthree and six people would surround a computer workstation with twousers sitting side by side and the remaining group members arranged ina semicircle around the computer carrel. These observations were almostidentical to those reported by Gabbard, Kaiser, and Kaunelis (2007, 6).At any given time there might be three or four different groups clusteredaround individual workstation carrels out of the forty-eight public accessworkstations located on the main floor of the library. The most commontasks being performed by these groups were papers followed by analysesusing spreadsheet software.

These informal observations do not constitute a full-fledged usabilitystudy of the kind advocated by Rao, Luk, and Warren (2005, 58–59),but they did result in our identifying several design requirements. First,a collaborative work station had to permit at least two collocated usersto work interactively with one another. Interactive was interpreted in thefollowing manner: each participant had to have a clear view of the com-puter monitor and had to be able to provide immediate input using thecomputer. Second, the workstation needed to be configured so that twoor three additional users could clearly observe the monitor, even if theywere not directly seated at the keyboard. We felt that making an interactive

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 16:

21 2

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

Outstanding in the Field 369

station that would support more than two simultaneous inputs would beoverly complex, involving both hardware and software issues. However,our observations suggested that anything we could do to make it eas-ier for the group members to see the monitor and to interact with eachother and the machine would be of value. Third, since we had virtuallyno budget, any design had to be inexpensive. We decided to use equip-ment that was already available in-house and that would require littlemodification. This decision had a significant impact on the results, sincewe chose to work with existing hardware and not to make any softwaremodifications.

We began by appropriating one of our two reference desk workstations.We felt that if we could turn this computer into a collaborative workstation,we might want such a station at the reference desk in addition to thefreestanding stations intended for small group use. The reference deskstations have dual monitors displaying the same image to the patron andthe reference librarian. The monitors are connected using a “Y” or splittercable designed for the monitors in use. While SVGA has been the standardfor some time now (using the fifteen-pin connector), newer monitors areusing the DVI format and have a rectangular connector.

The computer software at the time of the initial design was the Mi-crosoft 2003 operating system. Research into the device drivers showedthat multiple keyboards and mouse devices could be connected to the samecomputer. This would allow multiple but not simultaneous input by users.Rather, each user would have to take turns providing inputs along the linesof conversational turn-taking. We initially connected two PS/2 mouse de-vices together (the round plug connector with seven or eight pins) with aPNY splitter box but discovered conflicts between the splitter box and thesoftware drivers. We worked around this by connecting one device using aPS/2 connector and a second device using a USB port connector. This al-lowed bypassing the splitter device altogether. The same strategy was usedfor the keyboards. A USB-equipped mouse and keyboard were connectedto the USB ports on the back of the computer leaving the original PS/2keyboard and mouse device connected to the computer. Both the keyboardsand mouse devices worked without conflicts. Ideally the same result couldbe accomplished by using two USB-equipped keyboards or mouse devices,but our computers at the time were older models with limited USB ports.The dual monitor, dual keyboard, and dual mouse configuration workedwell enough that we immediately reconfigured the second reference deskworkstation. The budget for equipping a single reference desk station isprovided in Table 1.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 16:

21 2

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

370 COLLEGE & UNDERGRADUATE LIBRARIES

TABLE 1. Single Reference Desk Station Budget

Equipment Amount purchased Cost

Computer CPU 1 each-already in place $0.00Dual flat screen 19′′ monitors 2 each-already in place $0.00SVGA monitor splitter cable 1 each-already in place $0.00PS/2 Keyboard 1 each-already in place $0.00PS/2 mouse 1 each-already in place $0.00Dell USB Keyboard Dell part # 310-8038 1 each $12.49Mouse device Microsoft N71-00007S Black USB

mouse1 each $9.99

Total cost per reference desk workstation usingin house parts

$ 22.48

COLLABORATIVE WORKSTATIONS FOR PATRONS

The next step after converting the two reference desk workstations wasto build collaborative workstations for our patrons. We applied for a teach-ing grant to construct two collaborative workstations based upon the samestrategy of using computers and associated peripherals that are alreadyavailable in-house. The grant in the amount of $1300.00 was awarded inDecember 2006. Because the computer monitors in the public area werethe large CRT tube monitors, the majority of the grant application wasdevoted to purchasing dual nineteen-inch flat screen monitors for eachof the two workstations. Table 2 contains the budget expenditures for the

TABLE 2. Costs for Two Collaborative Workstations

Equipment Amount purchased Costs

Computer CPU 2 each-already in place $0.00Dell flat screen 19′′ monitors (model #E197FP) 4 each @ $213.90 $855.60SVGA monitor splitter cable 2 each @ $13.12 $26.24PS/2 Keyboard 1 each-already in place $0.00PS/2 mouse 1 each-already in place $0.00Dell USB Keyboard (part # 310-8038) 2 each @ $12.49 $24.98Mouse device Microsoft (N71-00007S) Black USB

mouse2 each @ $9.99 $19.98

Total cost for two collaborative workstations usingin house parts

$ 926.80

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 16:

21 2

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

Outstanding in the Field 371

two computer workstations. The monitor pricing is based upon educa-tional discounts negotiated by the State of South Dakota with the DellCorporation.

A total of $373.20 dollars remained in the grant after purchasing themonitors and peripheral devices for the two collaborative workstations.This was due in large part to a significant price decrease in the cost ofthe monitors. We decided with approval of our director to purchase twoadditional monitors, with the library funding the amount in excess of thegrant, to create a third collaborative workstation. The director also agreedto fund the purchase of the monitor splitter cable and the extra keyboardand mouse device. The total cost for three collaborative workstations was$1390.20 or $463.40 per workstation. Purchasing a new computer withmonitor would increase the overall cost per workstation. However, theadditional equipment needed would be reduced by one monitor, assum-ing the computer was purchased with an accompanying monitor. Usingthe costs outlined in Table 2, a new computer with a nineteen-inch flat-panel monitor could be upgraded to our collaborative platform for anadditional $249.50 per station. These costs include the second monitor,a splitter cable for the monitor, a USB-equipped keyboard, and a USBmouse.

Serendipity favors the prepared. The university replaced the comput-ers in the library public access area with new Gateway computers andseventeen-inch flat-screen monitors shortly after the collaborative work-stations were assembled. Two of the new CPU towers were allocated toreplace the original, much slower machines. This meant we were workingwith completely new equipment for the entire configuration. One signif-icant, unexpected advantage is that new computers have between fourand six USB ports located on the back of the CPU in addition to severalUSB ports on the front of the unit. This allowed us to replace the PS/2keyboards and mouse devices with USB-equipped devices while still leav-ing several USB ports available for patron devices such as flash memorysticks.

Two of the collaborative workstations are set up on a six-sided tablewith each station occupying half of the table. There is room for patronsto work even though the dual monitors, keyboards, and mouse devicesoccupy much of the table’s surface area (see Figure 1). The third station isin the process of being set up. It will occupy a smaller table set against awall in the library with the same amount of space for both the equipmentand patrons to work on.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 16:

21 2

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

372 COLLEGE & UNDERGRADUATE LIBRARIES

FIGURE 1. Students Using a Collaborative Workstation.

REFERENCE COLLABORATIVE WORKSTATION

Patrons and librarians received their first exposure to these collaborativeworkstations at the reference desk, where the two computers were recon-figured (see Figure 2). Some patrons would begin using their keyboardand mouse almost as soon as they sat down at the reference desk, whileother patrons would be prompted by the librarian to use their tools to setup a search or to demonstrate what they had already tried in their searchprocess. These patrons were often pleasantly surprised to find that they hadaccess to the input tools and thus control over their search. Both patronsand librarians found the need for turn-taking with the input tools to beintuitive. On occasion, either the patron or librarian might ask for controlof the mouse to prevent both users from moving the cursor at the sametime. Because the dual monitors are set at angles to each other, patrons andlibrarians often use the mouse as a pointing device. Providing this pointingability to both sides of the reference transaction facilitates communication

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 16:

21 2

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

Outstanding in the Field 373

FIGURE 2. Reference Desk Station Being Used by a Patron and ReferenceLibrarian.

while reducing ineffective finger pointing when only one party sees whatis being indicated.

Both users and reference librarians noticed an immediate change in thereference desk dynamic. Users made positive comments on the new ref-erence workstations during the course of reference interviews. Librarianscould spend more time on instruction, including asking patrons to showwhat search techniques they have already tried or providing encourage-ment and input from their side of the desk without having to physicallytake control of the search from the patron. One of the simplest yet mostempowering outcomes has been the patron’s ability to enter his/her owne-mail address into the search results portion of a database that allowsarticles and related citations to be sent to the patron’s e-mail address. Thisgives agency to the patron while eliminating the time-consuming process ofasking for/providing one’s e-mail address only to have it possibly enteredincorrectly.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 16:

21 2

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

374 COLLEGE & UNDERGRADUATE LIBRARIES

The most relevant outcome of having a collaborative workstation at thereference desk is its immediate and positive impact on instruction. Patronsare able to model the entire search process with the librarian providing sug-gestions or giving immediate feedback as the patron conducts the search.The role of the librarian is more flexible with the collaborative worksta-tion. A reference session might begin with the librarian demonstrating adatabase or a specific search strategy to a patron. The librarian initially istaking on the role of an instructor. Once the patron is ready to model thesearch strategy, the librarian can move from a teaching role to one of con-sulting, advising, and suggesting as the patron manipulates the databases.Toward the end of the session, when patrons say, “I think I can do thison my own,” they are speaking from having performed their search at thereference desk. It is also common for a patron to take control of the searchand spend time independently downloading or e-mailing articles. Thesepatrons either end the reference interview on their own once they feelthey’ve learned what they need to know, or the librarian has to intervenein order to help a new patron when the patron wants to continue using thereference workstation because he or she is finding relevant results.

PUBLIC COLLABORATIVE WORKSTATION

The collaborative workstations set up for the patrons’ use are popularwith both individual users and groups. Individual users appear to like theextra work surface provided by the large table and the fact that the table isisolated from the rows of individual computer carrels. Individual users willoften turn off one of the two monitors, probably for reasons of privacy.

Groups use the collaborative workstations in different ways. Businessstudents are among the heaviest users of these collaborative workstationsbecause much of their coursework is done in teams and because the spread-sheet analyses often done by these students is a task that benefits from multi-ple and immediate inputs from team members. Databases used by businessstudents such as Research Insight’s Compustat require very knowledgeableusers. Business students have identified the teaching utility of the collab-orative workstations as a key feature for teams using the Research Insightdatabase, since each group tends to have one or two members who arefamiliar with the database and who provide informal instruction to otherteam members.

Groups often use the collaborative workstations to collaborate on papers.Some groups make full use of the multiple keyboards for input, whereas

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 16:

21 2

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

Outstanding in the Field 375

other groups have one member who does the typing. Most of the time bothmouse devices are in use as pointing devices in addition to the conventionalrole of the mouse device for controlling program features. Groups differ inhow they use the dual monitors. Some groups or teams with two or threemembers will set the monitors at angles to each other, with each person orteam sharing one of the two screens. Larger groups tend to place the twomonitors side by side so everyone can see from a distance.

There are some unexpected uses of the collaborative workstations. Somegroups include members with laptop computers that can access the library’swireless network. These groups will use both computers with the laptopaccessing information from the library databases, while the collaborativeworkstation is used for the writing of a paper. Both coordination andcollaboration take place in this example with multiple computers fillingdifferent yet supporting roles.

On a few occasions, one of the two monitors on a collaborative work-station has been disconnected along with the keyboard from the main CPUunit. We suspect users are connecting the monitor and keyboard to theirpersonal laptop computers. Other users of the collaborative workstationshave reconfigured the equipment while also informing the staff about thechanges in the equipment. This suggests that reconfiguring the equipmentis easily accomplished.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS

A systematic evaluation of the collaborative workstations measuringboth teaching effectiveness and user satisfaction needs to be done. Our dataconsists of anecdotal comments made by users or observations made bylibrarians in the course of daily interactions with users and the collaborativeworkstations.

These stations can be further modified to meet different needs. Videocards can be installed and a simple script written that would allow switching“on the fly” between displaying the same image on both monitors andhaving each monitor be part of a larger workspace. Monitors larger thanthe nineteen-inch ones currently in use could be employed to ensure groupmembers have the same view when each monitor becomes part of a largerworkspace. Libraries that move in this direction will also need to considerprivacy issues associated with large monitors. Collaborative workstationscould be located in separate rooms or the monitors could be oriented to facea wall rather than out towards the public spaces. Software that supports dual

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 16:

21 2

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

376 COLLEGE & UNDERGRADUATE LIBRARIES

mouse cursors rather than both mouse devices controlling an individualcursor as is presently the case would enhance the collaborative features ofthe workstations. Different colored or shaped icons could identify the left-or right-sided mouse for the group using the station.

Our initial goal was to provide an inexpensive collaborative workstationthat would support the most common tasks undertaken by groups usingthe library—writing papers, using spreadsheets, and making presentationsusing presentation software. Additional hardware and software includingmedia applications could be added to the stations, or a single collaborativestation could be placed in a dedicated media center as demand dictates andfunding allows.

Finally, the way in which some patrons have configured the workstationsuggests a shift in the way libraries organize their computer resources. Withmore colleges and universities requiring students to own and use laptopswith wireless connectivity, libraries should consider providing universaldocking stations with monitors and keyboards/mouse devices in addition toindividual workstations as is now the case in most libraries. This philosophyextends naturally to the collaborative workstation being transformed intoa collaborative docking station that provides the additional monitors andinput devices for groups using their own computers.

CONCLUSION

Academic libraries need to accommodate groups as well as individu-als with technological support in today’s collaborative environment. Theone-user-one-machine paradigm prevalent in many libraries today fails inthis regard. Group work in libraries includes dyads and small groups ofbetween three and six people as well as dyadic encounters at the referencedesk. A basic collaborative workstation can be constructed using in-housecomputers and additional peripheral components that support the kind ofwork most commonly undertaken by academic library users in addition tosupporting active learning at the reference desk. Librarians need to realizethat the effective library requires a mixture of individual and collaborativeworkstations that support the activities occurring within a library. It is upto these libraries to identify the extent of each activity and to supply theappropriate mixture of individual and collaborative workstations for theirinstitutions.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 16:

21 2

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

Outstanding in the Field 377

REFERENCES

Barton, E., and A. Weismantel. 2007. Creating collaborative technology-rich workspacesin an academic library. Reference Services Review 35:395–404.

Campbell, S., and D. Fyfe, 2002. Teaching at the computer: Best practices for one-on-oneinstruction in reference. Feliciter 1:26–28.

Fields, A. M. 2006. Ill-structured problems and the reference consultation: The librarian’srole in developing student expertise. Reference Services Review 34:405–420.

Freeman, G. T. 2005. The library as place: Changes in learning patterns, collections, technol-ogy, and use. In Library as place: Rethinking roles, rethinking space, 1–9. Washington,DC: Council on Library and Information Resources.

Gabbard, R. B., A. Kaiser., and D. Kaunelis. 2007. Redesigning a library space for collab-orative learning. Computers in Libraries 27:6–11.

Kerwalla, L., D. Pearce, N. Yuill, R. Lucjun, and A. Harris. 2006. “I’m keeping thosethere, are you?” The role of a new user interface paradigm – Separate Control of SharedSpace (SCOSS) – in the collaborative decision-making process. Computers & Education50:193–206.

Luce, R., and M. Di Giacomo. 2003. Personalized and collaborative digital library capabil-ities: Responding to the changing nature of scientific research. Science and TechnologyLibraries 24:135–152.

Oblinger, D. 2005. Leading the transitions from classrooms to learning spaces. EducauseQuarterly 1:14–18.

Peterson, C. A. 2005. Space designed for lifelong learning: The Dr. Martin Luther KingJr. joint-use library. In Library as place: Rethinking roles, rethinking space, 56–65.Washington, DC: Council on Library and Information Resources.

Pomerantz, J. 2006. Collaboration as the norm in reference work. Reference & User ServicesQuarterly 46:45–55.

Rao, V. S., W. Luk, and J. Warren. 2005. Issues in building multiuser interfaces. Interna-tional Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 19:55–74.

Twidale, M. B. 2005. Over the shoulder learning: Supporting brief informal learning.Computer Supported Cooperative Work 14:505–547.

Weismantel, E. et al. 2006. MSU Libraries Hi-Tech Space Committee Preliminary Report.East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 16:

21 2

5 O

ctob

er 2

014