ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries 984 / C&RL News processes for evidence of library involvement in the teaching/learning process. The groups then divided; there were two ses­ sions for the libraiy directors. In one session, Stan­ ton Biddle, Baruch College, described the ACRL University Library Standards for the participants. These standards, plus those for college libraries and two-year institutions and information about the O utput Measures Manual, were included in the packets distributed. He stressed the change in emphasis from quantitative to qualitative standards and the need to focus on the meaning of numbers, rather than see them as an absolute. All data must be reconciled with the mission, goals and objec­ tives. H e emphasized that the purpose of the site visit is to verify the accuracy of the self-study and to gain a b e tte r understanding of the environment. In the other session, Marilyn Lutzker, John Jay College o f Criminal Justice, offered an approach for evaluators as they consider bibliographic in­ struction programs in their site visits. She sug­ gested they look at the school and weigh the effect of the program on the overall institution. She sug­ gested four methods to use in the evaluation: the self-study, the library’s statem ent o f objectives, the examination of syllabi and course outlines, and discussions with faculty, administrators, and stu­ dents. Lutzker will prepare an article for CLrRL News on this topic in the near future. Simmons has also accepted an invitation for the Commission to be a m em ber o f the ALA-spear- headed National Forum on Information Literacy. ■ ■ Educational roles for academ ic libraries Prepared by the BIS Think Tank Betsy Baker (chair), Beth Sandore, Mary Ellen Larson, Randy Hensley The AC RL/BIS Think Tank defines the state-of-the-art and prepares an agenda fo r the future. T he B ibliographic In stru c tio n Section sponsored its first Think Tank in 1981. A group of six recognized leaders in the area of bibliographic instruction was identified by a BIS planning committee. This early Think Tank o f 1981 was charged with several responsibilities: I) identi­ fying the key issues shaping the future o f BI; 2) recom m ending a program of research and action to enable the profession to overcome obstacles and seize opportunities related to BI; 3) stimulating professional discourse. The results o f these delib­ erations outlined an agenda for the 1980s that significantly advanced BI and has served as a focus for much BIS effort over the past decade. The reader is referred to “Think Tank Recom m enda­ tions for Bibliographic Instruction,” College {? Research Libraries News 42 (1981): 396, for fur­ th er review o f the 1981 Think Tank. Much o f the progress in the educational efforts of academic libraries in recent years can be traced to that first Think Tank. Yet, the changes affecting libraries and their institutional constituencies have been equally profound. The ensuing decade since the first Think Tank has seen the widespread move 9 8 6 / C&RL News to online information retrieval systems, fiscal re ­ trenchm ent, changes in the demographics of users, and new administrative structures for libraries and other information services. In light of the dramatic changes that occurred since the first Think Tank, and in anticipation that the trends affecting aca­ demic libraries are leading to new educational opportunities for librarians, a second Think Tank was recom m ended by the BIS Executive C om mit­ tee as a dynamic mechanism for exploring future directions both in the discipline and for the Biblio­ graphic Instruction Section o f ACRL. Through the sponsorship o f ACRL’s Special Grants funding, the second Think Tank was held in Dallas, Texas, June 22-23,1989, immediately preceding the 1989 ALA Annual Conference. The BIS Executive C om m ittee appointed a Think Tank Steering Committee, chaired by Betsy Baker, to plan and coordinate this event. Members o f th e com m ittee included D eb b ie C am pana (Northwestern University), Melanie Dodson (New York University), Randall Hensley (University of Washington), Mary Ellen Larson (Pennsylvania State University), and Beth Sandore (University of Illinois). T h in k T an k Two: S e ttin g th e sta g e The first Think Tank’s approach was to identify leaders within the field to suggest a BI agenda for the 1980s. The second Think Tank focused on gauging what breakthrough issues are occurring in the field that directly concern BI and m erit wide­ spread consideration. The second Think Tank addressed these issues: 1) assessing the state-of-the-art o f BI; 2) anticipat­ ing the evolution o f new service roles to effectively m eet the needs of the academic community; 3) and identifying areas for concerted effort for the future. The intention was to gather individuals who are strong in the profession, who could approach chal­ lenging issues in a rational, objective fashion, and could serve as vehicles for communicating the general pulse of the profession. Nominees for the Think Tank m et one or more of these selection criteria, as evidenced in the supportive information which was subm itted with their nominations: 1) significant research on issues germane to user education in academic libraries; 2) innovation in educational services on a national or regional level; 3) publication or presentation of theoretical issues contributing to the conceptual developm ent of user education in academic librar­ ies. Every effort was made to identify nine partici­ pants who would represent the major issues and concerns in BI— geographically, across the United States and Canada, and experientially, ranging from BI librarians to library directors, to library educators. The perspective o f a current library school student was also seen as a desirable elem ent in this process. C r u c ia l to p ic s in in str u c tio n Since the group’s time together was brief, the program was structured around an opening state­ m ent and four working papers. Each was a collabo­ rative effort, prepared in advance by a team o f two participants, on four timely topics which will affect the future developm ent of instructional programs in academic libraries: O pening Statem ent: “BI Revisited: Do We N eed a Facelift? (Do librarians really want one?),” William Miller. 1. “Information Literacy,” H annelore Rader, Bill Coons. 2. “H igher Education C urriculum R eform ,” M aureen Pastine, Linda Wilson. 3. “The Challenge o f Changing User Groups,” Betsy Wilson, James Shedlock. 4. “Educating a Second Generation of BI Li­ brarians,” M artha Hale, Allison Level, and Eliza­ beth Frick (in absentia). W ith the focus issues identified, each team set out to identify key trends that have surfaced re ­ cently in these four areas. Some of the many ques­ tions initially posed by the Think Tank Steering C om mittee included: How should bibliographic instruction programs respond to the challenge that information literacy represents? Is the term infor­ mation literacy simply rhetoric, or does it have substance? flas the information age caused faculty to radically change the content of their courses, based on the growing realization that they cannot necessarily be expected to know everything on a particular subject? Do rem ote access information services create a new user population? If so, how can BI respond to their needs? Should current library and inform ation science cu rricu la be changed to accommodate the second generation of BI librarians? Papers were exchanged in advance through fax and th e mail. T h in k T a n k T w o u n fo ld s in D a lla s Think Tank participants m et in Dallas, at the Hyatt Hotel, on Thursday evening, June 22. The Thursday session was convened with an informal reception, w here participants were able to meet, some for the first time, while others becam e re ­ acquainted. Betsy Baker provided an overview of the Think Tank, elaborating on its purpose and structure. William Miller set the stage for the Think Tank in his delivery of a provocative assessment of the past directions and developments in BI. The lively conversation from that first session spilled over into a dinner discussion. On Friday, the Think Tank again m et at the December 1989 / 987 Hyatt for an all-day session. Participants p resented the four working papers. Betsy Baker and Mary Ellen Larson alternated throughout th e day in m oderating and facilitating the presentations and discussion. As the participants p re se n te d th eir ideas, th e m oderators assum ed a critical devil’s advocate role, to test group assumptions and ac­ ceptance. Each presentation was followed by b rief discussion. Randy Hensley and Beth Sandore re ­ corded notes on highlights of th e presentations and th e discussion, and presen ted summaries for the group after each paper, and at th e close o f the day. In th eir role as recorders, H ensley and Sandore fram ed the discussion around new them es that em erged as th e Think Tank participants interacted. O ne o f th e values o f th e Think T ank was not just discussion o f problem s b u t also th e proposing o f resolutions and outcom es th a t directly reflect the concepts discussed by th e speakers. F o r example, in th e area of information literacy, such projects that came from the discussion included: develop­ m ent o f a continuing education program for BI librarians; publicizing th e need to b e assertive and political regarding th e role of libraries within cur­ ricula; developm ent o f an inform ation literacy re ­ sponse unit within an organization; and establish­ m ent o f dem onstration sites for initial responses or programs in information literacy; establishm ent of evaluation criteria. T hroughout th e Think Tank, a healthy diversity o f opinions was expressed. W hile participants viewed each subject from different vantage points, th ree key them es em erged: 1) information literacy: regardless of sem antic differences, th e group em phasized th at it is critical for BI librarians to address broader instructional issues than those contained within the walls of th e library, and to m ake th e ir p re se n c e visible on cam pus, and throughout th e u ser community; 2) th e profession m ust seek new and creative ways to foster the developm ent o f new professionals who can ulti­ mately carry th e goals o f instruction forward; 3) th e profession should rew ard leadership, especially w hen th at leadership contributes to innovation, no m atter how controversial it m aybe. As the day wore on, these them es becam e affectionately known as thousand points of light (no political affiliation suggested), curriculum in th e sky, and leaders need love. O u r constantly returning emphasis on these them es m ade it clear to th e group th at these issues deserve m ore formal refinem ent. P o s t T h in k T a n k a c tiv itie s Think Tank participants and Steering C om m it­ tee m em bers p re sen ted a summary of th e work accomplished during this intensive session at the BIS Advisory Council m eeting on Saturday, June 24. W ritten summaries of th e Think Tank, com ­ piled by H ensley and Sandore, w ere distributed at this meeting. Those interested in obtaining a sum ­ mary o f the Think Tank deliberations may contact Betsy Baker at N orthw estern University Library, 1935 Sheridan Rd., Evanston, IL 60201. Plans for a m ore com prehensive publication including the four working papers are now being pursued. T o w a r d t h e fu tu r e o f B I As in the past, the Think Tank identified issues which challenge th e field in a broad sense, with specific bearing on instructional activities in librar­ ies. BI librarians have constantly b ee n at th e fore­ front in addressing instructional issues throughout th e past century. All terminology and aphorisms aside, th e Think T ank’s purpose involved identify­ ing critical issues facing those involved in some way with BI. O ne issue which resurfaced continually throughout these discussions was th e perception of th e degree to which BI, as we now present it, is an integral part o f institutions’ educational initiatives for th e future. T h a n k s to T h in k T a n k p a r tic ip a n ts The academic library of th e 1990s faces a n um ­ b e r o f issues th at affect its role and mission: it m ust be a leader in th e creation, m anagem ent, and re ­ trieval of electronic information; it m ust be a d e ­ signer o f information instruction programs; and it m ust be an in terp re ter o f a generic structure for the com m unication and dissemination o f scholarly in­ formation. The Steering C om m ittee’s goal to stimulate a critical look at th e educational roles needed by academic research librarians was m ore than real­ ized by the T hink Tank participants. The structure o f th e Think Tank dem anded that each participant examine potentially controversial and in some cases unpopular points o f view. T he fact th at all of th e participants w ere courageous enough to raise these issues and be open to public scrutiny points to th eir com m itm ent to excellence in growth in the profession. Some of the issues raised in th e Think Tank will certainly benefit from a broader forum within the Bibliographic Instruction Section. To bring others into th e discussion, th e ACRL BIS Continuing Education C om m ittee is sponsoring a discussion forum entitled, “Inform ation Literacy or Biblio­ graphic Instruction: Semantics o r Philosophy?” at the M idwinter M eeting in Chicago, January 1990. Lori Arp, Patricia Breivik, Joan Ormondroyd, and H annelore R ader will briefly presen t four view­ points on th e topic that will lead to an informal participatory discussion. C om e prep ared to voice your questions and concerns in w hat prom ises to be a lively and enlightening session. W atch for fliers 988 / C& RL News and o th er publicity announcing th e tim e and place. You are also urged to atten d th e BIS Think Tank C om m ittee m eeting on Sunday morning, January 7, from 9:00-11:00 a.m., if you have any ideas to pass on to th e com m ittee. ■ ■ Installing a lo c a l area com p act disk netw ork By Joan Carey C om puter Services Coordinator Brandeis University and Virginia M assey-Burzio Head o f Reader Services Brandeis University Patron acceptance o f databases on CD-ROM justifies their installation and expense. B randeis is a small, highly competitive re ­ search university. Its two libraries, the Main and Science Libraries, support an u n d e r­ graduate population o f 3,500 students and a gradu­ ate student population of approximately 900. R e­ cently th e Main L ibrary (Social Sciences and H um anities) was selected as a test site for the installation of SilverPlatter’s M ultiPlatter local area netw ork (LAN). T he overall reaction to the n e t­ work has been very enthusiastic. The CD-ROM network On January 26, 1989, th e SilverPlatter Multi- P latter system was installed. This is a slightly modi­ fied version o f C D -N et, developed by M eridian D ata C orporation. The basis for th e netw ork is Novell N etw are running over Thin W ire E thernet. The network server consists o f five stacked drives with a 286 processor. Because th e server does not have a hard disk drive, access software is m ounted on each individual workstation. O u r installation was unique in many ways. W e w ere th e first to run M ultiP latter on an E th e rn e t (Boston College has a Token Ring LAN). W e also w ere th e first to use non-uniform hardw are. O u r c u rre n t hardw are configuration consists o f five workstations: one IBM XT, one IBM PC with a hardcard, two Zenith AT compatibles, and one Wyse M310 workstation. T he two Zenith stations are equipped with color monitors. F o u r o f these stations are located in the public area near th e reference desk. T he fifth station, located at th e reference desk, is used for a variety of additional functions which include: dial­ up access to online search vendors like Dialog and BRS; access to o th er B oston-area online public catalogs; connecting to o u r cam pus-wide network; and w ord processing. All stations are connected to H ew lett-Packard “Thinkjet” printers. A nother unusual aspect of this project was the n u m b er and variety o f com pact disk (CD) products installed. W e have te n disks from five different vendors, with only five slots in our server. T h ere­ fore, reference staff m ust “swap” disks on a regular basis. Patrons choose th e disk they wish to search from an A utoM enu Screen. A com m and informs