Meeting notes: July 19, 2005 (Or, what is a delivery method, anyway?)

Survey Responses
To date, we’ve received only 11 responses, but since Erica only managed to send the survey out to two listservs before going on vacation, we thought we could try to send out a reminder and then also send to the additional listservs identified earlier (PubLib, Web4Lib, etc.) and send reminders to KanLib-L and LITA. Erica will take care of this as well as send the preliminary results in an excel file to the group.

Other survey distribution: Cindi is going to send the survey to the CLENE listserv. Jane will send it to the system directors and to Shannon who can either distribute the survey to the other continuing education task forces or provide us with the contact information.

Additionally, if folks know of individuals who might be successful encouraging others to fill out the survey (directors, etc…), task force members should feel welcome to send requests to promote the survey to those persuasive individuals. We’ll review the responses again on August 8.

Report Format and Delivery Options
There was a good deal of discussion on the nature and types of delivery methods and how to provide helpful information on and categorize the various delivery options. Building on the categories Cindi identified in her notes from last meeting, we decided to make a list of the general method options, and then discuss each option briefly but consistently across categories. We would use continuums to try to compare options (such as low tech vs high tech; low touch vs high touch, etc…), and while we would use vendors and products as examples, we would not try to provide an extensive listing and review all the various products used for continuing education. We also tried to broaden the discussion to include delivery methods that did not include a heavy reliance on computer tech (publishing and face to face). The categories discussed are listed below, but are still up for discussion. (Please discuss/comment on the categories.)

• Web meeting/conferencing software (such as WebEx, NetMeeting, OPAL)
  
• Recorded stand-alone formats (Online or CD/DVD-based simulations which include audiovisual elements)
  
• Published text-based formats (Text on paper or online, includes blogs and wikis)
  
• Online Learning Communities (such as WebJunction)
  
• Desktop Video Conferencing
  
• System-based Video Conferencing (like Polycom)
  
• Online Course Management Software (such as WebCT or Blackboard)
  
• Face to face interaction

After we have the categories nailed down, we’ll post each category as a separate blog post, and then we can all contribute what we know about the individual delivery modes. With hopes, this method will help us to determine which categories need more research and help us to distribute the responsibilities across the task force.

The descriptions for the categories should be fairly consistent in format and content. We have started a list of topics to include in the descriptions (below), and these, too are still up for discussion. Please discuss/comment on the description content and make suggestions for changes.

Elements for investigation (outline of each description):

1. Brief description of the category including examples
2. System, software, and hardware requirements for presenter (includes a general idea of cost)
3. System, software, and hardware requirements for participants (includes a general idea of cost)
4. Advantages and disadvantages
5. Number of people that can be served
6. This delivery method is most effective/least effective for...
7. Low touch vs high touch

Next steps
Jane will write up a list of assumptions that will precede the descriptions so that others reading the document will understand our mindset and what the document represents (not an exhaustive list, home-grown systems not considered, etc..) Additionally, Jane’s conference call with the other task forces is scheduled for tomorrow. She’ll run our plans by the State Librarian, and ensure we’re on the right track before we start drafting our report and descriptions. Once we have the go-ahead from Jane, and we have nailed down the categories and the elements for investigation, we’ll use the blog for drafting.

Next meetings
Thursday, July 28
9 a.m. - 10:30 a.m.
Location: Johnson County Library’s OPAL room (same as today--Erica will set it up so we can all be moderators, and co-browse as needed)

Wednesday, August 10
9 a.m. – 10:30 a.m.
Location: to be determined, Charlene will investigate using Marratech via Kan-Ed

Comments? Changes? Feel free to edit the notes or use the comment function.