1. Online Reading Lists at Loughborough University Gary Brewerton, Library Systems Manager

2. Contents The System ◦ Background ◦ Basic requirements ◦ Development of LORLS ◦ Current redevelopment Implementation and promotion ◦ Implementation ◦ Issues raised ◦ Ongoing promotion ◦ Measure of success

3. Part 1: The System

4. Background Project initiated by University’s Learning and Teaching committee in February 1999 The basic aim of the project was to provide an online version of the academic’s own reading list for each module Library initially approached to provide a “quality” (?) role in the process but a year later took over development of the system

5. Basic requirements Allow academics to create and maintain their own reading lists via the web ◦ Including annotating the list with comments and indicating suggested holdings to the Library ◦ Displaying the reading list in an order determined by the academic Linking to the Library catalogue Alert Library staff to new or changed items Supply data to the campus bookshop

7. Development of LORLS Web-based system developed in 2000 ready for start of new academic year University of Nottingham expressed interest in using the system in 2002 and so it was made available under an open source license Finally gave the system a name – LORLS (Loughborough Online Reading List System) Since then there have been 3 minor releases of the software

9. Current redevelopment After nine years, decision was made to redevelop LORLS based on past experience Key features: ◦ Separation of user interface and backend functionality (easier to embed in other systems) ◦ Ability to mimic other institutional structures and not just Loughborough University ◦ Customised metadata for differing material such as articles, books, journals, websites, etc. Intend to pilot at Loughborough in 2010

11. Part 2: Implementation and promotion

12. Implementation (1/2) Advertised the new system including demonstrating it to interested parties Blamed University for everything bad! Before the launch of the system we asked all academics for a copy of their reading lists ◦ Hired temporary staff to assist in inputting ◦ Once completed responsibility for updating was passed (back) to the academics

13. Implementation (2/2) Lots of training sessions provided ◦ Some in the Library, some in departments ◦ Mostly group sessions but some one-on-one training ◦ Workshops organized for less enthusiastic and issues raised used to inform further development of the system ◦ We still provide training for new staff

14. Issues raised Differing types of reading lists ◦ Engineering lists typically very short (3-4 items) ◦ Science lists usually an A4 page (up to 25 items) ◦ Humanities lists can be huge (up to 1,396 items) Who owns a reading list? ◦ Is a reading list a publication in its own right? ◦ Is it owned by the academic or the institution? ◦ Who should be able to access it?

15. Ongoing promotion Use every opportunity to promote the system (e.g. any form of assessment) If appropriate play departments/faculties off against one another Periodically “nag” (via email) academics to maintain their reading lists Continue to provide training (maybe online) Advocacy remains an ongoing process!

16. Measure of success Prior to having an online system the Library received around 400 reading lists a year ◦ This represented 22% of the available modules running in each year (although not all modules have reading lists) ◦ Some lists were photocopied from students when they came to the enquiry desk In the first year of having an online system we got 857 lists and currently were have 2,416 list (some potential or dummy lists)

17. Any questions?