The Alabama Librarian, Vol. 59, Issue 2

THE

VOLUME 59, ISSUE 2

ALABAMA LIBRARIAN

FALL 2021

A Message from the Editor-in-Chief…………………………………………………….……………….3 Jessica E. Platt The Editorial Board of The A labama Librarian………………………………………………………….4 Guest Editorial……………………………………………………………………………………………5 Ali Krzton

Migration to Koha: Selection and Implementation at a Small Academic Library………………….……9 Amanda Melcher & Kaycee Ledbetter Fight On, Fight On for Ole Jax State: Houston Cole Library's Historical Collections Highlight JSU's Resiliency During Its First Pandemic……………………………………………………………………….19 John-Bauer Graham, Allison Boswell, & Bethany Latham Using Augmented Reality to Enhance Academic Library Signage, Exhibits, and Instruction………….28 Natasha Jenkins Call for Articles………………………………………………………………………………………...37

The Alabama Librarian is a biannual, open access, peer-reviewed journal published by the Alabama Library Association.

ISSN 0002-4295 Cover designed by Nystasha Kelly

2

A Message from the Editor-in-Chief

Dear Readers, December is often a time to pause and reflect on our experiences of the past year. As the New Year approaches, we tend to ask ourselves: How can we improve?

The work performed daily by librarians is multifaceted and in a near constant state of evolution, and the innovative nature of librarians is evident in each submission in this issue. From trying a new open-

source integrated library system (ILS) to exploring augmented reality in an academic library; from teaching modern information literacy skills and the problem of information siloing to describing how historical collections illustrate the resiliency of higher education institutions in past pandemics, these articles highlight the solutions constructed by librarians when crossing uncharted waters.

As the authors write in “Fight On, Fight On for Old Jax State”: What did we learn?

We learned that pandemics can last longer than we’d like, but we also learned how to change our libraries and modify our roles to serve our communities when they need us the most. We also learned that

modifying our roles sometimes means changing our behaviors and learning how to adapt to new technologies. It must not be forgotten that as information professionals, we learned how valuable—and vital— reliable information is in our technology-driven world, and how words can make a world of difference depending on where they are found and how they are used.

We always accept submissions for publication consideration, so please feel free to submit at any time.

Authors can expect for accepted submissions to be published within 6 months of the submission date.

While ALLA membership is encouraged, it is not required at this time. I encourage you to read our Call for Articles on page 37 and to visit our website for more information (https://www.allanet.org/alabama-

librarian).

Thank you for reading this issue. We hope to feature your work in a future issue!

Jessica E. Platt Education Doctoral Librarian Alabama State University Editor-in-Chief, The A labama Librarian

3

The Editorial Board of

The Alabama Librarian

Jessica E. Platt, Editor-in-Chief Alabama State University M. Delores Carlito, Editor University of Alabama at Birmingham Tim Dodge, Editor Auburn University Charlotte E. Ford, Editor University of Montevallo Jessica Hayes, Editor Auburn University Montgomery Peggy Kain, Editor University of Alabama at Birmingham Kathy Wheeler, Editor University of South Alabama Laura Pitts, Editor Scottsboro Public Library Michelle Hamrick, Proofreader Irondale Public Library Lori Northrup, Proofreader Samford University Jodi Poe, Proofreader Jacksonville State University Kelly Marie Wilson, Proofreader Independent Researcher

4

Guest Editorial

What Machine Learning Means for Libraries The COVID-19 pandemic threw the role of technology in our lives into sharp relief. While videoconferencing programs, delivery apps, and the availability (or not) of broadband internet were some of the most visible examples, the pervasive use of artificial intelligence, particularly in the form of machine learning, has received comparatively less attention. Machine learning allows “smart assistants” like Alexa, Cortana, and Siri to comprehend our commands, cloud photo services to organize and tag friends in our photos, and our preferred streaming app to recommend what to watch or listen to next.

Although we encounter these technologies every day, many people still do not know what machine learning is or how it works. Machine learning is a subset of artificial intelligence. Rather than operating in general ways like human intelligence often does, machine learning is intended to accomplish a specific task, such as making a decision in a narrow domain. For example, a machine learning tool could be built to determine whether a given picture contains a cat. While this may seem like a trivial task, the advantage of the technology becomes clear when the goal is to identify the presence of a cat in thousands, or even millions, of pictures. Machine learning is indispensable in the era of big data.

The basis of all machine learning is pattern recognition. As a machine learning algorithm operates, it builds mathematical models of the subject of interest. Importantly, these mathematical models are not static, and that is where the “learning” aspect of the technology comes in. To return to the cat example, instead of a programmer trying to input all the possible properties of a cat picture ahead of time, the algorithm draws on

data from a collection of examples that do and do not contain cats to create mathematical models representing the degree of “catness” in a picture on its own terms. Then, as it is exposed to more data over time, it updates and refines these models. This not only improves the accuracy of the models, but also allows them to adapt.

The flexibility inherent in the bottom-up identification of properties is a key advantage of machine learning.

Medical researchers made extensive use of machine learning in order to develop prognoses and treatments for COVID-19. In the early days of the pandemic, when the disease was not well understood, scientists

5

aggregated data from millions of electronic health records and utilized machine learning algorithms to discover

the risk factors for poor outcomes, as well as to gauge the effectiveness of various medical interventions. Machine learning excels in situations where little is known in advance about the system of interest, such as when human bodies react to a novel virus. Arguably, automated analysis of electronic health records at this scale also helped protect patient privacy since researchers never saw or handled data that could be traced to individuals.

When it comes to libraries, many familiar tools already leverage machine learning. For example, commercial discovery systems designed to let users search the library more like they search the web are built on machine learning, particularly in how they determine relevance rankings. With user profiles, those relevance rankings could be personalized based on the preferences of users the system has judged to be similar. Another application of machine learning is text analysis, which is changing the way scholars use libraries to do research. With natural language processing and a corpus of text, someone could glean information from a source that they’ve never read, or even directly accessed.

One area in which machine learning allows for rapid advances is knowledge organization. The systems

libraries use to classify information have traditionally been top-down, for example with controlled vocabularies and subject headings, and do not easily coexist with alternative classifications or terminologies. Machine learning can be employed to create knowledge graphs that link subjects, sources, authors, and more based on connections that emerge from people’s actual engagement with these works. While not a replacement for cataloging, these bottom-up webs of interrelated information can provide a useful complement to it. They are particularly beneficial in areas of rapid development, where decisions about organization and labeling are necessarily contingent and more easily permit shifts between research contexts or frameworks of understanding.

Regardless of whether or not librarians encounter or employ machine learning tools in their libraries, it is crucial to understand how these technologies work. More than ever, algorithms that rely on machine learning shape the information landscape of our users. In order to help users be information literate (and to remain information literate ourselves), we need to know how this happens. Whether it’s searching with a search engine or browsing a social media feed, machine learning drives what we’ll see, and just as importantly, what we won’t see.

6

This can be an advantage when trying to prioritize information in an overwhelming sea of sources. For

example, librarians could help users set up profiles on search tools that refine results using machine learning in order to find information that is highly specific to their research topic or area of interest. The algorithm will take advantage of available data based not just on the user’s own history, but that of all the other users making similar requests, perhaps taking into account their judgments about source quality, to decide on the best results.

It may fall to librarians to explain how these services differ from more traditional keyword searches or alerts so that users can get the most out of them.

On the other hand, since machine learning is designed to recognize patterns and reproduce them accurately, tools of this kind can be limiting in cases where someone is researching a different topic or studying within an emerging area. These scenarios involve a deliberate break from the user’s past habits and, in the latter case, a divergence from the large datasets the search tools rely on for learning. Thus, it may be a mistake to rely on “smart” services in these instances. In addition, since machine learning methods are designed based on presumed similarity between examples, they are not suited to take into account unique situations or highly specialized information needs.

It is particularly important to educate users about these issues with respect to familiar commercial search engines. Companies like Google have engineered their algorithms as precisely as possible to return results that conform to user expectations of what they are requesting. This is especially apparent in their efforts to make general internet search tools responsible to natural language questions. That may not be a problem when there is a simple, direct, and singular answer, for instance if someone were to ask “What was the score of the last Iron Bowl?” But as librarians are well aware, this way of finding information is less than ideal for most substantive queries. It might help users understand the limitations of these tools if librarians can explain that

machine learning reduces the likelihood of seeing highly relevant results if they are less popular.

There is also the problem of information siloing that arises when people rely on social media feeds to discover news and other content. The algorithms that govern users’ timelines are designed to learn what to display in order to maximize user engagement—the time people spend interacting with the app. This means there is no guarantee the material presented to users is truthful or represented accurately, because the goal of these programs is not to inform or educate, but to inspire a response. The app collects data on what kinds of posts

7

users view, share, and reply to most often and returns more of the same. Worse, since these feeds are so per-

sonalized, people are presented with very different information environments, leading them to wonder whether people who have another perspective or express opinions contrary to their own are living in a different world.

In a sense, with respect to what they experience online, they are. Librarians who teach information literacy need to raise these issues, help learners confront their implications, and offer alternatives that represent multiple points of view.

Finally, as libraries provide services and support to help their communities recover from the pandemic, making users aware of how decisions affecting their lives are being made by algorithms based on machine learning could reduce barriers to accessing resources. For instance, many people come to the library to get assistance searching for jobs. Since the volume of applicants for certain jobs has dramatically increased, employment websites often use algorithms to filter for keywords or other indicators that a resumé matches the employer’s criteria. A job seeker frustrated that they are not getting any responses to their applications might adjust their strategy if they knew their resume was being screened out before it reached any human review. Librarians do not have to become experts on the inner workings of these systems to be able to give basic advice to such users and help them connect with opportunities for which they are qualified.

Like any technology, machine learning has its pros and cons, but in the age of big data it is here to stay. Librarians will need to familiarize themselves with developments in this area to provide the best possible education and service to members of our communities, modeling lifelong human learning in the process.

Ali Krzton Research Data Management Librarian Auburn University Libraries

8

Migration to Koha: Selection and Implementation at a Small Academic Library

Amanda Melcher Head of Technical Service and Associate Professor University of Montevallo

melcheras@montevallo.edu

Kaycee Ledbetter Head of Circulation University of Montevallo kledbetter@montevallo.edu

9

Abstract Carmichael Library at the University of Montevallo decided to migrate away from the integrated library system that was in place for approximately 25 years during the summer and fall of 2018. This paper describes the rationale behind the change, along with the factors that went into selecting Koha, an open-source integrated library system (ILS). Specifically, the authors describe the implementation, including the selection rubric, training process, migration, and advice to achieve the best outcome. The entire process took a mere six months

to complete. This practical paper will serve as a roadmap with tips for libraries that are considering an ILS switch.

Keywords: Koha, OPAC, ILS, integrated library system, online public access catalog, academic library, implementation

Background The University of Montevallo, a small liberal arts college located in Montevallo, Alabama, is home to the Carmichael Library. Full time enrollment for the University is about 2,500 students and there are approximately 500 faculty and staff employed. The Library has 12 staff members, seven librarians and five paralibrarians. The Library offers over 200,000 physical items for use across different collections such as general circulating, reference, youth, multimedia (e.g., DVD, CD), reserves, and archives/special collections.

Rationale for Migrating For many reasons which will be described, there was a sense of urgency to migrate away from the integrated library system (ILS) that had been in place for a number of years. First and foremost, there was a consensus among library staff that the system no longer met our needs. Secondly, the Library was on the sixth year of a flat budget and needed to put cost saving methods in place. Thirdly, the University’s Information

10

Systems and Technology (IS&T) Department asserted that the Library needed to either switch to a cloud-based system or update the server that housed the ILS. Finally, the Library was able to hire a systems librarian.

An ILS facilitates access to and management of the resources available in a library. It organizes and tracks materials and keeps a record of library patrons. A library’s ILS is the backbone of operations, making it an essential tool. The previous ILS had been in place for twenty-five years and prior to that, the Library used a manual card catalog. The system was becoming increasingly outdated and lacked upgrades and innovation. To successfully work with other systems in place on campus, we needed an ILS that would allow processes to be modified for efficiency.

The budget was a critical factor in deciding the right time to transition. Along with the previously stated flat budget, database costs increase 3-5% annually, so cancellations would be required. The high cost of the previous ILS felt outsized compared to its strengths and weaknesses. We had no indication that our budget circumstance would change in the near the future, but we knew the ILS cost would continue to rise. The library director decided we could no longer justify paying for the expensive ILS, and we needed to see what other options were available.

In addition to the annual cost increases, the lack of innovation of the ILS was holding us back. We were paying a large subscription and maintenance fee every year, but only performing software upgrades when absolutely necessary. The reason we were reluctant to update was two-fold. One, we did not have a systems librarian for a number of years. Without that knowledge and expertise, we didn't feel confident enough to make such a big change. Secondly, when an update was needed, every individual computer had to be updated

manually. With 12 staff computers and eight student worker computers, this was very time-consuming. When we did upgrade the software, there was very little innovation or added functionality. The changes were minor and usually security-related. The system had simply stopped meeting our needs.

A third factor that necessitated the change was a serious warning from the University’s IS&T department. A 25+ year old server hosted the previous ILS; a disaster waiting to happen. IS&T cautioned us that if the server crashed, we could have potentially lost patron records and our entire catalog. We were approaching 11

the subscription and maintenance renewal time (Fall 2018) for the previous ILS. IS&T recommended purchasing a new server as soon as possible to safeguard our data. We had not budgeted for this expense and it did not address the other issues.

Finally, for the first time in a number of years, the Library had a dedicated systems librarian. Many of our routine updates and upgrades had been put on hold until this position was filled. The IS&T department helped us with critical systems processes, but this type of change required a knowledgeable library employee to be very involved in, not only the migration process, but also maintenance of the new system after the implementation.

Selecting a new system

While most everyone in the Library agreed that the previous ILS was outdated, but work had to be done to build consensus for the change. Support across the library departments was essential for the transition to be successful. When we started the migration in earnest, we had six months until the subscription and maintenance contract renewed on the previous ILS. We could not afford to renew the contract and pay for a new system out of the same fiscal year. The only other option was to be without an ILS until we were ready to go live. The stakes were high, and consequently, the timeline was very intimidating.

One of the first steps taken by the library director was to name a migration leadership team. While changing systems would affect everyone in the Library, it would have the biggest impact on the three employ-

ees that used the system most often. The Technology Integration and Web Services Librarian (systems), the Head of Technical Services Librarian, and the Circulation Manager became the driving force behind the decision to move forward with finding a new system. This team was integral in taking the project from conception to completion.

The library director and the systems librarian selected three ILS contenders for migration based on three factors: the total cost of system, the annual Library Systems Report by Marshall Breeding (2017), and the 12

systems’ integration with our Discovery system. The three selected for consideration were SirsiDynix’s BlueCloud, WorldCat’s WMS, and Koha. The leadership team was tasked with doing the legwork to determine which option was best for the Library. The library director took a supportive but hands-off approach. The team briefed the director throughout the process.

Before actually looking at any of these systems in depth, it was decided that we needed an impartial way to grade the systems based on our needs. The team decided to create a rubric to evaluate them in a systematic and fair way. This provided an opportunity to include all the library staff. Each department was asked to provide a list of attributes and functions needed to efficiently do their job and a “wish” list of items that they did not currently have, but would be ideal. Within the areas of circulation, reporting, cataloging, acquisitions, serials, public interface, system, and pricing, the staff identified approximately 40 items for the rubric that were considered essential, important, or just nice to have. These 40 features were scored on a Likert scale of 15, 1 being poorly supported and 5 being fully supported. The rubric not only provided an organized way to evaluate the system options, but also provided a clear vision of what the group needs were. The rubric illustrat-

ed what the previous system lacked and reinforced the need for the change. The leadership team divided up the rubric areas and, with the help of staff, worked through the evaluation. As we progressed through the rubric, we would stumble on a new feature in one ILS and would need to re-visit the other systems to check for availability. Overall, this was tedious and time-consuming, but a beneficial endeavor. (See Appendix for the ILS Selection Rubric.)

While all of the systems had merit, two clear frontrunners emerged, Koha and WMS. The migration

team had the opportunity to visit two Alabama libraries, one that was using Koha and one using WMS. It was extremely beneficial to interact with a live system as opposed to a demo. We learned things from the employees using the systems that were not obvious when using a demo version. For example, creating reports in one of the systems seemed very simple in demo mode. However, our visit revealed that the process was complicated and oftentimes the employee had to call customer support for help. We are deeply appreciative of this opportunity to see the systems in action. These visits were an invaluable tool in helping us come to the unanimous conclusion to go with Koha, hosted and supported by ByWater Solutions.

13

Implementation

In June, the implementation team reached out to ByWater Solutions to gain reassurance that the transition timeline would be possible. The vendor responded with a systematic implementation checklist and timeline, giving us confidence that the transition could be completed within our time parameters. The first step in the checklist was to set up a testing website, which provided a demonstration of how the system would operate and allowed staff to begin engaging with the process. Each department was able to log into the website and begin their set-up. This step gave everyone an opportunity to evaluate outdated practices and policies.

There is a plethora of system settings for circulation, acquisitions, cataloging, and reporting. Engaging everyone in the department with the setup process provided the group with momentum and enthusiasm about the decision. Staff made changes and reevaluated their processes to better suit the abilities of the new system.

There were many instances where a minor change in the workflow was made due to a lack of, or abundance of, system preferences available. The group was cohesive, making it easy to collaborate and agree on new procedures.

A crucial part of the implementation checklist was data extraction from the previous system, which needed to begin as soon as possible. Exporting our data in the correct format would ensure compatibility with the importation to Koha. The previous ILS vendor charged a fee to export our data, which we were not willing to pay. ByWater helped the systems librarian format and export our data from the old system. Not all information contained in the previous system was able to be migrated to Koha, while other data did not export

smoothly. For instance, extracting patron data was laborious. The previous system did not have an easy way to export all the data fields needed in one report, instead multiple extractions had to take place, and the data had to be pieced together by mapping matching data points. This required hours of detailed work to construct the file in the necessary format with the required information. When the data was suitable to import, it allowed for further testing of parameters to solidify the policies before the new system was implemented. Seeing our own data in the test site was exciting and made the transition timeline seem feasible. It allowed employees to familiarize themselves and become comfortable with the new system.

14

Part of the agreement with ByWater included an intensive three-day on-site training. The vendor pro-

vided a regimented schedule that covered each area (e.g., circulation, cataloging, reporting, etc.) While all staff were encouraged to attend any session they desired, the schedule was devised so that staff could attend the session most relevant to their department and job responsibilities. Prior to the ByWater visit, the implementation team asked staff to attempt all their typical tasks in the Koha test site and document any questions or issues that arose. We wanted to get the most out of the visit by making the sessions targeted and relevant. Training was important to the transition momentum. As the staff prepared for the new system, they were able to provide input on ways to improve previous procedures and workflows based on the new system. Another important part of the transition was training the student workers. It was important that they felt invested in the change and equipped to use the new system. The students adapted very quickly to the system with little to no major issues.

Post-Implementation Implementation day came and went and the new system proved to be the much-needed upgrade we had hoped for. Employees quickly adapted to Koha; creating new procedures and workflows. Predictably, there

were a number issues that had to be resolved after launch day. The patron data we originally imported into Koha came from data extracted from the previous system. When the spring semester started, it was time to update the patron data. It took a few months and lots of troubleshooting to securely connect and download the newest batch of patrons from the University’s administrative software. Another snag we encountered was an error in the patron data that was extracted from the previous system. This error caused the patron data to not map correctly with the late fine and lost book data. Fines were assigned to the wrong patron accounts. Discovering this issue and correcting it took almost six months.

Before the implementation, we had been reassured that Koha would work with our primary book vendor to enable EDI ordering. We later learned that Koha will only work with EDIFACT, not X12 (the vendor preference). To enable this feature, our book vendor charged a fee (higher than some of our discipline allocations). Another glitch we had not anticipated was the need for Structured Query Language (SQL) knowledge.

Scripts had to be written to export our data from the previous ILS and to import it into Koha. We needed it to run anything other than the simplest of reports in Koha. The systems librarian had to devote some time to gain

15

working knowledge of SQL. While many processes in the new system were improved and simplified after the migration, serials prediction patterns were equally as frustrating. There was also more clean-up than we anticipated, particularly with our catalog item types and collection codes. Another issue we encountered was, unlike the previous system, borrowers in Koha have to be set for each individual item type, i.e., there is no sweeping “faculty privilege”. Other minor issues were discovered, but most were quickly resolved.

This is a timeline of our implementation and migration:

Conclusion Hopefully, this practical paper will assist libraries that are contemplating an ILS migration. Most changes of this magnitude occur over the span of a year or more, but we did the bulk of the migration in six months. The process was made manageable with appropriate preparation, effort, and determination to see it through to completion. A few of the most compelling reasons for our decision were: cost, usability, cloud host16

ing, positive user reviews, on-site training opportunities, and the fact that Koha is open source. After the initial year’s implementation cost, Koha cut our ILS cost in half! The system is innovative and has many dynamic aspects. We have relied on ByWater support and they have not let us down. Overall, we are very glad we made the switch to Koha.

Following are some suggestions that we hope will assist colleagues in a similar situation: Involve individuals in implementation that will most often use the system; Start early on the rubric, it will take more time than you anticipate; Determine if any additional skills are needed for implementation (e.g., SQL knowledge); Have all staff test the system before going live; RUN REPORTS in the previous system before it is turned off, just in case they are unavailable in the new system; and If implementation spans two fiscal years, have an acquisitions plan in place detailing how to wrap-up open orders.

References Breeding, M. (2017). Library systems report 2017: competing visions for technology, openness, and workflow. A merican Libraries (5), 22.

17

Appendix ILS Selection Rubric: Criteria scored by Likert scale (1=Not Supported, 5=Fully Supported)

Circulation

Statement information import

Course reserves

Compare YBP and current collection for duplicates (notification?)

Ease of viewing and editing patron details (at a glance) Check in/out process (fewer steps than Horizon) View list of patrons w/ fines (unpaid) In house circulation capabilities

iPad/Tablet inventory and shelf reading capabilities Integration for payments (credit cards, etc)

Capability of searching Stat Class (professor's names when creating PO) System/General

Cloud based Externally hosted

Lost item fees & tracking based off status of book

Intuitive language

Reporting

Strong community support

All checked in/out items per day Collection sorting by Call Number Items by status Item Notes

Local notes in MARC records

Intuitive menu design No need for high level dedicated technical support inhouse OAI harvesting Serials

Select multiple titles to check in at once/Batch check in

Cataloging

Batch claim edit

Integration with Connexion

Prediction patterns

Integration with EDS (RTAC and regular item updates) Copy Cataloging Integration with labeling program

Public Interface Ease of finding items

Intuitive interface Ability to see the cover of the book (helpful in finding Browse by call number a book)

RSS feature to help in population of new materials (New books, DVD's etc for lists)

Vendor Considerations

Local Call numbers will migrate

Relationship with vendor/rep

Can gift information be migrated?

Community Support Vendor/Software age

Acquisitions

Reputation (librarytechnology.org)

EDI capabilities Integration/flow through for YBP and/or Amazon

Pricing

Import order information into ILS

Total cost of implementation and maintenance

18

Fight On, Fight On for Ole Jax State: Houston Cole Library's Historical Collections Highlight JSU's Resiliency During Its First Pandemic

John-Bauer Graham Dean of Library Services Jacksonville State University jgraham@jsu.edu

Allison Boswell Electronic Resources/Documents Librarian Jacksonville State University amboswell@jsu.edu

Bethany Latham Digital Assets & Special Collections Librarian Jacksonville State University blatham@jsu.edu

19

Abstract In the uncertainty of the COVID-19 world, those with a pragmatic perspective looked for precedent–has anything like this ever happened before and, if so, how did we deal with it? How can the past inform our current institutional situation? Jacksonville State University’s (JSU) Houston Cole Library (HCL) looked to its historical collections to offer insight into that most important of questions for an institution of higher education: What did we learn?

Keywords: pandemic, health, college, collections, historical

Background The current pandemic is far from unprecedented. There were major pandemics in 1957-58 and 196869. But perhaps the most well-known began in the spring of 1918, when military personnel returning home from World War I brought an H1N1 virus, known as the Spanish Flu, with them. During its worldwide spread in 1918-1919, death estimates put the toll anywhere from 20-50 million people, up to 675,000 in the United States alone (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2019). This is at a time when, according to census records, the US population was only 92 million, resulting in a much higher per capita impact than is the case today (Department of Commerce, 1913). The first cases appeared in Alabama in September 1918 (Spanish Influenza Appears in Montgomery, 1918), and by the last two weeks of October, 37,000 cases were reported statewide (Alabama Department of Health, 2017).

In attempts to mitigate spread, public health officers in Alabama recommended that public venues be closed. Many primary schools chose to suspend class for up to two weeks, as did some colleges, notably those such as Howard College (now Samford University) located in or near urban areas with larger, more concentrated populations. Jacksonville State Normal School (now Jacksonville State University), tucked away in the foothills of the Appalachians, did not close its doors.

20

Figure 1 Travel instructions, 1918. Bulletin of the State Normal School at Jacksonville, Ala.

In addition to a world war and a pandemic, JSNS faced other hardships. Unreliable trains and poor roads made travel to and from the school problematic (Sawyer, 1983). School bulletins from 1918-1919 give detailed instructions for students trying to make their way to JSNS. With the establishment of a Student Army Training Corps (SATC), JSNS was also converted into a training camp for young men needing vocational instruction before heading off to war. When the US Army officer assigned to Jacksonville’s SATC unit came down with the flu and his relief officer also caught the virus, JSNS President C.W. Daugette took it upon himself to find a solution (Sawyer, 1983, p. 49).

Figure 2 Student Army Training Corps (SATC) Barracks, ca. 1920. Houston Cole Library Historical Image Collection

21

Daugette applied to Camp McClellan (itself under a quarantine for a short period of time) for aid, and

one of the McClellan officers was detailed to the school to drill the SATC each afternoon. JSNS already offered medical services to its regular students; it extended those services to the influx of SATC students at the behest of the Surgeon General of the Army (Sawyer, 1983, p. 49-50).

At its core, the Jacksonville State story during the 1918-1919 pandemic is one of perseverance, compassion, and resiliency. Students were eager for education and college life, and the school, led by President C.W. Daugette, was dedicated to overcoming all obstacles to provide that education. Enrollment was volatile: 1917-1918 saw an 18% dip – from 272 to 224 students – with young men heading off to war, and fear of influenza possibly a factor as well. The following year brought a 54% surge, to 492 students, as male students joined the newly-formed SATC, and soldiers returned to resume their education (Bulletin of the State Normal School at Jacksonville, Ala., 1917-19).

Figure 3 SATC Induction List, 1918. Bulletin of the State Normal School at Jacksonville, A la

22

JSNS managed all this–with exactly 13 faculty and four support staff (Sawyer, 1983, p.50). On top of

everything else, the school experienced financial hardship: state appropriations were often late, leading President Daugette to take out loans to tide the school over until the state money arrived (Clarence W illiam Daugette Papers, n.d.).

While stressing perseverance (the attendance policy in the 1918 Bulletin was abundantly clear: “It is expected, therefore, that every student will allow nothing to interfere with his regular attendance” (p.11). JSNS strove to reassure worried parents and also show compassion for those affected by the pandemic, despite the school’s own precarious finances. Cash-strapped families applied to President Daugette to see what could be done.

Daugette’s correspondence demonstrates that, though the State Normal School Board of Trustee rules stated that no fees should be returned to students, he would regularly refund their unused board or offer to roll it over as credit in the hopes that the student would be able to return to school. “I hope to have her back,” he wrote to one parent of a recently recovered student, “Wishing you and Miss Adams and all a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year” (Clarence William Daugette Papers, “Letter from President C.W. Daugette to Mr. Benton L. Adams, Delta, AL,” 23 December 1918). To another student recovering from influenza, Daugette wrote to reassure the worried young man that the school was open and a place would be held for him: “Come as soon as you are able” (Clarence William Daugette Papers, “Letter from C.W. Daugette to Leon H. Machen, Goodwater, AL,” 13 November 1918).

Figure 4 Letter from Benton L. Adams to C.W. Daugette, December 20, 1918. Clarence W illiam Daugette Papers, Houston Cole Library, Alabama Gallery Special Collections

23

Figure 5 Letter from Leon H. Machen to C.W. Daugette, November 11, 1918. Clarence W illiam Daugette Papers, Houston Cole Library, Alabama Gallery Special Collections

Daugette and the faculty of JSNS also wanted to make sure that students had the best college experience that could be provided, despite the challenges occasioned by the Spanish Flu. As soon as quarantine was lifted from Camp McClellan in November, the camp football team took on JSNS, which had roundly thrashed Presbyterian College the week before: “A hot game is promised” (Anniston Star, “Camp Team Plays State Normal School,” 13 November 1918). President Daugette was also a keynote speaker at a massive torchlight

parade earlier that month to mark the end of the war, the dissipation of the “flu-scare,” and better times ahead: The faculty and students at the State Normal college, the student army training corps and the citizens of the surrounding country all came together in a great rally in celebration, and never before in the history of Jacksonville has such a celebration bee[n] put on (A nniston Star, “Jacksonville Celebrates,” 12 November 1918).

24

These highlights from the Library’s historical collec-

Figure 6 Anniston Star, November 13, 1918

tions help to answer the question of what can be learned from Jacksonville State’s first pandemic: greater hardships have been faced in the past, but perseverance, courage, compassion, and a focus on what brings us together saw Jacksonville State through.

Fast forward a century. Through the hard work, dedication, and perseverance of its faculty and staff, the Houston Cole Library fought on for Ole Jax State. The Library was the first academic building to welcome students back and quickly reestablished its place as the hub of our University.

As it was over 100 years ago, this same spirit occupied the hearts, hands, and minds of the Houston

Cole Library’s faculty and staff. A directive from Jacksonville State’s Provost and President was issued early in the COVID-19 pandemic. The call was to be courageous and compassionate, as was done in the past, to open our university softly, to welcome back our students and to provide them with the “experience” of higher education that goes hand in hand with their learning. To assist the University in continuing its mission, a three -stage approach to physically opening back up the Houston Cole Library to benefit the campus community was taken.

Stage 1: May 13-18, 2020 The Library Dean and Department Heads entered the building to get it "pandemic ready". Those measures consisted of assessing spaces, putting stickers on floors six feet away from each other and changing signage in the building. Department Heads also set up a curbside delivery for patrons and manned reference chat, emails and phone calls while the library was operational but remained closed to patrons.

25

Stage 2: May 18-June 1, 2020

The Library opened its doors to some patrons on a modified schedule. It was only open to JSU faculty, staff and students with a proper JSU ID. Library faculty and staff that were deemed essential were expected to report, but they staggered hours and shifts to allow for social distancing and limit the total number of people in the building. During Stage 2, faculty and staff that were uncomfortable coming into work for personal or safety reasons could continue to work from home. Those who came into the building to work were required to follow proper social distancing protocols. Masks were required to enter the building and were provided by the Library, along with multiple sanitizing stations throughout the building.

Stage 3: June 1, 2020 The University President called for all offices at the University to be open and all personnel to be on campus. The fully-staffed Library opened its doors and greeted our patrons back to a modified summer schedule, seven days a week.

The earlier pandemic, as illustrated by the Library’s historical collections, provides a perspective that faculty, staff, and students can consider in light of COVID challenges. The lessons taught by that earlier pandemic suggest that practicing patience with ourselves and others, supporting one another, and being optimistic about our future may facilitate a quicker and less stressful transition to a post-COVID world.

Figure 7 JSNS female students on the steps of Hames Hall, circa 1919.

Houston Cole Library Historical Image Collection

26

References Alabama Department of Public Health. (2017). 1918 Flu outbreak. Retrieved from https:// www.alabamapublichealth.gov/pandemicflu/history-of-1918-influenza.html.

Bureau, U. S. C. (2021, October 8). 1910 census: V olume 1: Population, general report and analysis. Census.gov. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/library/publications/1913/dec/vol-1-population.html.

Camp Team Plays Normal School. (1918, November 13). Anniston Star. State Normal School, Jacksonville, Ala: Clarence William Daugette Papers, Houston Cole Library, Alabama Gallery Special Collections.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2019, March 20). 1918 pandemic (H1N1 virus). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/1918pandemic-h1n1.html.

Historical Image Collection: Archival Collections @ Houston Cole Library: Jacksonville State University. (n.d.) Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.jsu.edu/lib-ac-histimg/ Jacksonville celebrates. November 12, 1918. A nniston Star.

Jacksonville State Normal School at Jacksonville, Ala. (1917, 1918, 1919). Bulletin of the State Normal School at Jacksonville, Ala. Sawyer, E. W. (1983). The First Hundred Y ears: The history of Jacksonville State University, 1883-1983.

Centennial Committee, Jacksonville State University.

Spanish Influenza appears in Montgomery. (1918, September 28). Birmingham News.

State Normal School, Jacksonville, Ala [Clarence William Daugette Papers, Houston Cole Library, Alabama Gallery Special Collections]. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.jsu.edu/lib-ac-histimg/23/

27

Using Augmented Reality to Enhance Academic Library Signage, Exhibits, and Instruction

Natasha Jenkins Acquisitions, Collections, Assessment, and Resource Management Coordinator

Alabama State University drnatashajenkins@gmail.com

28

Abstract Augmented Reality (AR) is a technology that has been evolving since the 1960’s. It involves overlaying the real world with digital objects. There are applications available for academic libraries to help engage users and enhance user experiences with library resources. During the summer of 2021, the Levi Watkins Learning Center at Alabama State University piloted a project that involved using AR to enhance some of its existing signage, displays, and resources. This article highlights these examples of AR at this library, challenges the librarians experienced while implementing the AR, what they learned, and their future plans for implementing AR.

Keywords: augmented reality, academic libraries, instruction

Introduction Imagine sitting in a room having a conversation with Civil Rights icons like Rosa Parks or the Reverend Robert Graetz and his wife, Jean. During the encounter, they tell you stories of preparing for marches or what it was like to have someone try to kill you. Imagine being a student needing information about a specific library service or resource and the world is in the middle of a pandemic, so a librarian safely appears with all the information you may need. Librarians and Digitization Technicians at the Levi Watkins Learning Center (LWLC) at Alabama State University (ASU) have made both of these possible through augmented reality (AR). The idea to present artifacts in the library’s special collections using AR was initially introduced to the library’s administration in the fall of 2018, and a project was piloted in the summer of 2021. The librarians also envisioned utilizing this technology to enhance signage, displays, and resources by merging “the real world with digital objects as visual overlays” (Roy & Kanjilal, 2021). One goal of AR is to help users inside the library have better experiences (Ekart, 2011). This pilot project involved integrating augmented reality into several existing library displays that were capable of enhancing cognitive learning for library constituents at the LWLC. According to Anderson and Krathwohl (2001), cognitive learning is a process involving six categories: remember, understand, apply, analyze, evaluate, and create. The remember category is complete when an

29

individual is able to recall knowledge. Understanding is the ability to interpret meaning from communication

in various forms. The third category, apply, involves executing or implementing a procedure. Analyzing involves determining the important parts of a message, how the message is organized, and the purpose of the message. The evaluate category involves making decisions based on established criteria. Lastly, the create category involves constructing or designing a product. Relevant assessment strategies are determined by the process and category.

The recall and execution processes of the “remember” and “apply” categories were selected as the focus points of the pilot project at the LWLC. According to Anderson and Krathwohl (2001), examples of recall and execution assessments are giving students prompts to demonstrate the ability to recall previously learned information, and carrying out a known procedure to demonstrate the ability to execute a learned task, respectively. The assessment for these categories and processes will be explained in the AR at the Levi Watkins Learning Center section.

Research on the possibility of using AR in the LWLC began with a focus on academic libraries (Sural, 2018; Todd-Diaz et al., 2018), and quickly grew to include public libraries (Dahya et al., 2021) and institutions

other than libraries (Chasapis et al., 2020; Porter & Heppelmann, 2019). Augmented reality has been used in academic libraries to market information and resources, enhance information literacy, and deliver information (Roy & Kanjilal, 2021; Todd-Diaz et al., 2018). Roy and Kanjilal (2021) explored the use of AR applications on mobile devices to assist academic librarians in choosing the most efficient, and cost effective application to meet their institutional needs. The study found that AR is valuable to users during COVID, and that its performance depends on the object. Todd-Diaz et al. (2018) used two libraries to explore the viability of several AR applications in academic libraries. The features, types of available subscriptions, and download

ability were compared for five AR apps. To incorporate the technology into the library, AR applications had to be selected, designed, and developed, content had to be created, and the technology had to be marketed to the campus community.

The App Web based AR applications allow for three types of AR: marker-based AR, markerless based AR, geolocation-based AR. Marker-based AR involves bringing an image to life. The image must be unique to ensure 30

it has not been previously used by other AR apps (Paladini, 2018; Zvejnieks, 2019). The unique image, or

marker, is scanned using an AR app previously downloaded on mobile app (Zvejnieks, 2019). This scan will initiate additional 3D content to appear on top of the marker. Markerless based AR involves scanning a flat surface in the surrounding environment (Zvejnieks, 2019). Interior design tools are examples of markerless based AR. Geolocation-based AR connects content to a specific location. It places virtual objects or walking directions on top of the physical space (Paladini, 2018). An example of geolocation-based AR is Pokemon Go. The selection, designing, and development of the AR application at the LWLC was completed by the Digitization Technician. Arloopa, an AR application that to life.

ARLOOPA offers packages that depend on the number of markers an individual or institution will use, as well as the amount of cloud data storage they will consume. The starting price for activation is $14.99 per month for the institution (Arloopa, 2021). This allows students and other library constituents to download the Arloopa app from both the Google Play Store and the Mac App Store for free. Once users download the app, they tap the scanner icon, aim their camera at an image or object, and wait for it to identify a marker. Users can also opt for the markerless experience by opening the app and selecting one of the categories. Both the cost of activation and ease of use were factors in the selection of this app.

AR at the Levi Watkins Learning Center Signage During the 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 academic years, academic libraries were faced with having to adapt to virtual learning environments due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This meant that librarians had to learn new methods of student management and student engagement. To aid in this endeavor, librarians at the LWLC concentrated on new formats for content delivery. The primary formats were videos and LibGuides. Once students returned to face-to-face instruction, AR would provide a socially distant way to provide answers to commonly asked questions, to teach procedures, and to engage users in a different way.

Librarians created a list of common areas, services, and resources that users frequently asked about.

Videos created during the pandemic’s virtual learning experience, in addition to a list of content to be created, were matched to this list. This list included instructions on how to print, descriptions of the types of rooms located on each floor, and lists of requirements for using specific rooms. An image or sign was selected for each 31

area. The Digitization Technician chose to use only the marker-based option for this project. The videos, a

brief description, and a unique image were selected for each of the markers. Finally, each marker was published. Upon viewing the content associated with each marker, it was expected that users had the cognitive ability to carry out a certain task. To assess this cognitive skill, users were allowed to print or check out a book without assistance. If they were successful, it was assumed the specific cognitive process was achieved because they had the ability to carry out a known procedure or execute a learned task.

Interactive Exhibits

Librarians are often searching for innovative ways to market their services. Students at ASU have an enhanced exhibit to help them identify their subject librarian. As a part of the pilot project, librarians created introduction videos to make the “Meet Your Library Faculty & Staff” display interactive. The videos highlighted the individual personalities of each of the librarians, as well as informed users about research assistance, library hours, and other services. Each librarian also submitted a unique image, which was given to the Digitization Technician to be used as the marker in the Arloopa application. Once the students scanned the image, a librarian’s 3D introduction video would begin playing. Content in the videos led students to knowing who to contact for research assistance and with making virtual appointments with their subject librarian.

Instruction Incorporating the use of AR with library instruction invites students to meet library staff, have hands on experiences with library resources, and simultaneously practice social distancing. In previous surveys, 56% of firstyear students at ASU preferred face-to-face methods of communicating with librarians. In an effort to connect with these students during the pandemic, the AR enhanced displays and exhibits were promoted as a part of the First Year Experience (FYE) Quality Enhancement Plant assignment. In the library portion of this assignment, students were required to watch a YouTube video which highlighted tips and services. Students were also invited to interact with the AR displays. The students were then asked to write one paragraph about their experience by responding to the following prompt: 

Use or explore at least one of the resources/tips mentioned in the video.



Describe your experience with the selected resource.

32



Describe your experience and the biggest lessons learned from visiting the LWLC?



How will you use what you learned from this activity to help you as an ASU student?

In the future, students will be prompted to use AR to learn how to use the library catalog, create appro-

priate citations, identify a specific type of source, and more. Librarians will use social media, informational videos, 3D models, and other technology to make AR content appealing to users. The goal is to enhance other cognitive learning processes by using these methods. According to Eldokhny and Drwish (2021) AR is used to encourage cognitive processes by presenting an extremely clear visual image that initiates a connection be-

tween the eyes and the brain. A video, or any content uploaded to the web-based AR application will have a positive effect on learning because cognitive loads are reduced, and it allows users to repeat the content as often as they desire Eldokhny and Drwish (2021).

AR provides librarians the opportunity to combine digital and physical spaces. AR has the ability to allow students to establish connections between information that were not possible prior to AR (Thomas, et al., 2019). For example, an AR application can be used to present library resources in 3D in a classroom. Students can examine the resources and compare them to learn identify a source based on physical appearance without leaving the room. This is advantageous during the COVID pandemic. The next time the student needs to differentiate between the sources, they will be able to use at least three cognitive processes-remember, analyze, and differentiate. Rather than storing the items and information about them in separate digital or physical locations, AR creates the space to store them in one location. This setting increases the possible uses of AR and the objects, which ultimately increases what the brain can process (Thomas, et al., 2019).

Lessons Learned This project revealed several challenges with the selected AR application. While the app seemed to do everything the Digital Technician needed, it did not function very well for users or the librarians. For example, it loaded slowly, and the user’s device has to be held horizontally to view the entire screen. This was only discovered after multiple uses. Also, users must create an account and sign in after the first 100 “experiences” with the app. Other apps such as Blippar, Layar, Clio, Aurasma, and Historypin will be reviewed for their functionality and applicability in the future (Diaz-Todd et al., 2018).Other challenges were related to market-33

ing and communication. Prior to expanding the project to include other exhibits, areas of the library, and en-

hancing artifacts with AR, a greater emphasis will be placed on marketing the technology and its capabilities. Lastly, many librarians were unfamiliar with the term “augmented reality.” This unfamiliarity created apprehension and stalled buy-in to the pilot project. Once librarians understood the idea of AR, both buy-in and content creation increased.

What’s Next?

Future plans for AR in the library involve exhibiting delicate items from the Special Collections and Archives collections. Staff in these areas are often responsible for promoting access to information and resources that are both rare and fragile. One-of-a-kind oral histories and video recordings of Civil Rights icons will soon accompany some of the exhibits, images, and displays in these areas . AR provides opportunities for interactive experiences to engage users with these resources about these artifacts. AR will allow users to view rare or unique objects at scale, from all angles, within real world environments (Thomas, et al., 2019).

Without AR, these objects would not be accessible. Along with the 3D artifact or video of the individual appearing in the physical space after scanning the environment, users will be guided to additional resources about the item or individual. A map, or geolocation-based AR will be used to direct users to books, additional displays, archivists, and other supplemental resources to assist with their information needs.

There are plans in place to enhance AR technology by incorporating the use of other web-based technologies. The library also recently purchased virtual reality (VR) goggles. VR is widely used in educational environments. VR acts as an imaginary world, while AR a digital object to the real world. Both AR and VR are commonly used in entertainment, education, and research (Chandrasekera & Yoon, 2018). In the future,

AR and VR will be promoted in tandem by the LWLC. There are also opportunities for the library to collaborate with the campus community. Students, faculty, and staff will be invited to serve as cameo presenters of information as a form of community engagement.

They will be provided with a script and allowed to present the information for certain areas, artifacts, or displays in the library. Input from library users will also be a vital part of the next phase of AR at the LWLC. Users will be able to leave comments about the AR displays by completing a survey. The survey will be accessible via QR code near all library public service desks, and at the end of each 3D AR video.

34

Questions will measure ease of use, willingness to return to engage with additional displays, and desire for dif-

fering content.

Conclusion AR at the LWLC is still in its infancy. Unfortunately, surveys were not completed during the pilot phase. This presented a significant challenge in determining which functions of AR users found most beneficial. However, there are a plethora of plans in place to incorporate AR into other areas of the library, to market the resource, and to measure its impact on the cognitive processes of library users. From instruction to marketing services, librarians are optimistic about the plans for AR at this library. This technology will allow them to be creative, supports the new COVID normal of not touching things, and instantly collects data. While this technology is engaging to students, faculty, and other users during their initial experience, librarians will use newly enhanced signage, displays, and instructional material to encourage users to return for additional visits.

References Anderson, L. W. & Krathwohl, D. R. (Ed). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman Inc. Arloopa. (2021). Arloopa. Retrieved September 30, 2021, from https://app.arloopa.com/ Chandrasekera, T., & Yoon, S. (2018). Augmented reality, virtual reality and their effect on learning style in the creative design process. Design and Technology Education, 23(1), 55-75.

Chasapis, P., Mitropoulos, S., & Douligeris, C. (2020). A prototype mobile application for the Athens Numismatic Museum. A pplied Computing and Informatics, ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print). https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.aci.2019.06.001 Dahya, N., King, W. E., Lee, K. J., & Lee, J. H. (2021). Perceptions and experiences of virtual reality in public libraries. Journal of Documentation, 77(3), 617-637. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-042020-0051 35

Ekart, D. (2011). Tech tips for every librarian. Computers in Libraries, 31(5), 38-39.

Eldokhny, A. A., & Drwish, A. M. (2021). Effectiveness of augmented reality in online distance learning at the time of the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 16(9), 198-218.

Paladini, M. (2018). 3 different types of A R explained: Marker-based, markerless & location.

Blippar. https://www.blippar.com/blog/2018/08/14/marker-based-markerless-or-location-based-ardifferent-types-of-ar Porter, M. E., & Heppelmann, J. E. (2019). Why every organization needs an augmented reality strategy. In Harvard Business Review’s HBR’s 10 must reads: The definitive management ideas of the year (pp. 85-108). Harvard Business Review Press.

Roy, S. G., & Kanjilal, U. (2021). Web-based augmented reality for information delivery services: A performance study. DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology, 41(3), 167174. https://doi.org/10.14429/djlit.41.03.16428 Sural, I. (2018). Augmented reality experience: Initial perceptions of higher education students.

International Journal of Instruction, 11(4), 565-576.

Thomas, R., Linder, K. E., Harper, N., Blyth, & Lee, V. (2019). Current and future uses of augmented reality in higher education. IDEA Paper #81. In IDEA Center, Inc. IDEA Center, Inc. Todd-Diaz, A., Gutierrez, A., & O’Dell, B. (2018). Using augmented reality to enhance outreach, instruction, and library exhibits. Computers in Libraries, 38(1), 8-11.

Zvejnieks, G. (2019). Marker-based vs markerless augmented reality: Pros, cons & examples.

Overly. https://overlyapp.com/blog/marker-based-vs-markerless-augmented-reality-pros-consexamples/

36

Call for Articles The Alabama Librarian is seeking articles relevant to librarianship in Alabama. The Alabama Library Association’s peer-reviewed journal publishes scholarly articles biannually in an open access format.

All manuscripts must be submitted to thealabamalibrarian@gmail.com as attachment to an email, preferably in MS Word.

Manuscripts must be written in APA style and include an abstract and keywords.

Although longer or shorter works may be considered, 2,000- to 5,000-word manuscripts are preferred.

The name, position, and professional email address of the author should appear in the bottom left-hand corner of a separate title page. The author's name should not appear anywhere else in the document.

Submissions will undergo a double blind peer review process.

Photographs and other images relevant to the submission will be accepted for consideration but cannot be returned. Digital images are preferred.

No other publisher should be simultaneously considering a manuscript submitted to The Alabama Librarian.

If the manuscript includes analyses of survey results, please acknowledge approval by the appropriate Institutional Review Board either through direct reference in the manuscript or acknowledgement as part of the manuscript submission.

Upon receipt, manuscripts will be acknowledged by the Editor-in-Chief, who will then assign manuscripts to two reviewers. The reviewers who receive the manuscript will have no direct information on the author or the author's affiliation. Following the review, a decision will be communicated to the writer.

Upon acceptance, publication can be expected within six months. https://www.allanet.org/alabama-librarian 37

Your membership in the Alabama Library Association will entitle you to the following benefits:

  

Reduced registration for workshops and conferences Networking with library personnel statewide, vendors, and elected officials Notification of issues concerning libraries by receiving state and national news briefs, listserv discussions, and flyers promoting activities of interest  A designated contact person within the Association (regional Members-At-Large) so your voice is heard  Participation in the Association's Elections and events.  Discussions of issues of interest at meetings with nationally recognized speakers.  Access to newsletters, listservs and web pages for a wealth of information.  Opportunities to continuing education credits.  And more!

Membership Dues: Regular member

$30-$80 (depending on salary)

Paraprofessional

$28

Graduate Student

$15

ALA Joint Student Memberships

$35 (ALLA/ALA Memberships - Join through ALA)

Trustee/Friend

$30

Retired/Unemployed

$25

Exhibitor

$30

Visit www.allanet.org/membership for more information.

38

THE

ALABAMA LIBRARIAN

39