Tag Archives: leganto

Achieving self-management using Leganto #anzreg2019

DIY for academics: a ‘how to’ guide for achieving self-management using Leganto
Kirstie Nicholson, University of Western Australia

“Self-management” of reading lists meaning unit coordinators creating, editing and submitting reading lists. Gives them autonomy and is efficient for library.

Previously lists were submitted via email; library would create in Alma course reserves (and liaise with unit coordinators) and students had access via Primo. This was always meant to be temporary but became permanent with age. Fully library managed so due to work involved was limited to essential items only. Had low usage and felt this was due to limited functionality. Highly inefficient to process or to monitor.

New model aimed to encourage and support self-management; allow student access via LMS (Blackboard); allow non-essential items; have liaison librarians rather than list processing staff liaise with coordinators. Knew coordinators wouldn’t want to learn a new system and would be busy to self-manage so would want library to keep managing things and wouldn’t use Leganto. So retained a library-managed list option with some restrictions (as last resort, essential readings, and only using basic Leganto functionality).

Started with 10-unit pilot, then went to full implementation in 2018. Branded it as “unit readings” (name chosen by pilot participants) and rolled over existing lists.

97% (215) of lists were self-managed in 2018 – reviewed, submitted, published by coordinators (with assistance available). In S1 2019 99.5% of lists – only one was library-managed. Very good feedback from coordinators re ease of use, intuitive, easy to integrate, fast, responsive. Why did it go so well?

  • Pilot provided real champions speaking up in support of it, and great comments in survey from both staff and survey which helped promote it. Also a confidence boost for library staff, affirming the model. In pilot could do one-on-one training which taught a lot about the needs for the system, which could then use in the implementation.
  • Functionality was a big leap up. Built to encourage academics to use it eg auto-complete which encourages self-management behaviour.
  • All-library approach on the project. Library management buy-in so all staff invested. Roles well-delineated, staff confident in benefits, well-equipped/trained to support coordinators.
  • Messaging emphasis that it was a university-supported project tying into uni strategy/goals (not just library); not paperwork but part of preparing for unit; benefits for academics and students.
  • Used old approaches as a cue for new opportunities eg when received an email list used it as an opportunity to meet coordinator and show them the new system.

Challenges

  • Publishing: meant to be academics’ responsibility but they often neglected this step and needed lots of followup. From Semester 2 library will take over this responsibility (which is easy) and change messaging to focus on getting academics to switch on LTI.
  • Full engagement with interface: they’d come in, create list, but not return to look at student interactions or add readings
  • Using more self-management functionality: haven’t opened up rollover, etc
  • Support content: what level of support content to provide, how to provide info needed without creating a whole manual. Ex Libris content doesn’t always match their workflows.
  • Transitioning off old system: a third of lists haven’t migrated so need to find out why (eg maybe it’s no longer taught).
  • Uneven use across faculties: both of Leganto and of the LMS.

Future plans to address these:

  • Student benefits are main motivator for academics to transition so want to use analytics more to demonstrate this
  • Targeted communications: define groups of users/non-users and target messaging appropriately; also target based on time of year
  • Support model: communicate this better.
  • Educational enhancement unit: work with this team and target early career educators
  • Usability testing

Q: How did you link Leganto introduction to university goals?
A: Mostly in the realm of engagement librarians at teaching and learning committees. Sent bulletpoints with them. Eg how it ties into uni educational strategy, student retention etc.

 

Aligning project milestones to development schedules #anzreg2019

Moving the goal posts: aligning project milestones to development schedules
Kendall Kousek, Macquarie University

Macquarie – 45,000 students, 2000 staff. New purpose-built library opened 2011. Alma, Primo, Leganto, CampusM

Multiphase pilot to introduce Leganto from 2017 – demo to Faculty of Arts, tested with 8 volunteer unit convenors. Next another 11; next widened to other faculties, and so forth. Now have 400 reading lists in all 5 faculties.

When NERS opened made suggestions eg:

  • links to free resources – instructors expect library to embed direct link. In Leganto it goes to link resolver which ends up going to home page by default. Library were expecting to fix this, but instead instructors were trying to fix it themselves – by removing data from the citation until only the manual link would work! Badly affected enthusiasm in one faculty in particular. Requested ability to hide broken links – this resonated and was picked up.
  • duplication – previous system let you rollover copyright info; Leganto deleted all this so everything had to be re-entered and rechecked. Requested duplication would duplicate copyright data – was picked up and implemented even better than expected in some ways – but not as expected in others. Librarian rollover options different from instructor rollover options – but issue was reported and resolved.
  • on rollover instructors kept on course but not on reading list. Requested a fix, planned for this November
  • course loader for rollover remains fairly manual, automation probably not possible

Roadblock – lots of workload required in getting LTI link into Moodle. Created a custom LTI block designed by library and created by learning team. Can be added by instructor per library’s “instructor’s guide”.

Concern students might miss the reading list link in the LMS and still try searching in Primo. So used Resource Recommender in Primo – this isn’t sustainable so plan to phase it out as students get used to accessing readings via LMS.

Happy with system and fixes / improvements to it. Now able to focus on increasing usage and rolling it out further across campus.

Predicting Student Success with Leganto #anzreg2019

Predicting Student Success with Leganto: a “Proof of Concept” machine learning project
Linda Sheedy, Curtin University

Early adoptors of Leganto as a reading list solution in 2015 – mainstreamed in 2017. Now 4700+ reading lists with 115,300 citations viewed 1.5million times by 42,000 students.

Ex Libris proposed a proof of concept project “to use machine learning to investigate the correlation between student success and activity with the Leganto Reading List”. Curtin had already been active using learning analytics so thought it would be a good fit.

Business need – early prediction (within 1-6 weeks) of students who’ll most likely struggle with their course.

Data:

  • student profile, grade and academic status data from Curtin – took significant time and effort to produce this, and inter-department work. Course structure and demographics are complicated.
  • Leganto usage from Ex Libris

Lots of work also combining the datasets.

Function: Ex Libris considered a number of possible algorithms – currently seems to be settling on the Random Forest algorithm but the final outcome may be a two-stage model.

So far Semester 2 2016 – Semester 2 2018. So far the algorithm has found the following features are most predictive:

  • student historical average grades
  • historical usage engineered feature
  • weighted student usage per course

  • student age
  • student usage in week 1 in relation to class

Model total accuracy is 91.9%
Recall: it catches 18.8% of students at risk
Precision: 69.44% (ie for 10 students predicted at risk, 7 actually will be) – considered high

The model clearly needs more work – but increasing recall shouldn’t be at expense of precision. More data may help along with more tweaking of algorithm.

Project has concluded; not sure where Ex Libris will take the project next or whether it’ll become a Leganto offering.

Q: What intervention did you take if any?
A: Just a closed project, all anonymised – just to see if it’d work – so no intervention during this project.

Q: Was demographic data other than age included?
A: The algorithm found itself that age was a major predictor (other demographic data was included but algorithm didn’t find it to be predictive of success).

Q: How was analysis improved?
A: At start of project hoped to prove that students would succeed if they read more. But as it went on it shifted to seeing what predicted when students would struggle.

Leganto implementations #anzreg2018

eReserve, Alma-D and Leganto: Working together
Anna Clatworthy, RMIT

Project to move all 14,000 Equella e-reserve items to Alma Digital in a format to suit Alma/Leganto copyright and digitisation workflows

All course readings at RMIT are digital; eReserve team in library accepts requests, scans items, uploads, sends a link back to use in CMS. Helps withh copyright compliance. Mostly book extracts, some journal articles, Harvard Business Review

Lots of questions to consider: MARC or DC; multiple representation or single record; how to deal with CAL survey in middle of migration; how do records look in Primo and in Leganto (which they didn’t yet have live); what is copyright workflow and how to manage compliance?

DC records weren’t publishing correctly so migrated to MARC. (This may have been fixed now). Multiple portion representations on a single bib record – migration process quicker, chapter/portion info in 505_2$a. Custom 940 field with copyright info

Extracted parents as spreadsheet, extracted children as spreadsheet, script combined the two — then instead imported records from Libraries Australia with a norm rule for extra fields (505, 542 for extract and copyright info; 9XX for CAL information); trained non-library folk to use MDE and run norm rules.

eReserve in Alma has no custom fields. Creates confusion for non-eReserve staff (thinking they own the book so no need to buy it though in fact only have 11pages of ch.4 – looks like a book in Primo too!)
* DC doesn’t work in Analytics – only see title
* Determined best practices and process for migration; set up Alma-D collections config and display in Primo; created MARC RDA cataloguing template and training; Leganto training and pilot; configure Alma reading lists, copyright, Leganto set up, and more…..
* Would like enhancements:
– automatic fills in copyright workflow – only working for some fields
– search function in reading list view
– MARC deposit form
– digital viewer link – Share link doesn’t work, leads to ‘no permission’ page. (Users need to sign-in first but of course they don’t.)
* With Leganto, show-and-tells seem to be getting interest, as is word of mouth. Not actually live yet though due to IT delays.

Leganto at Macquarie University: impressions, adjustments and improvements
Kendall Kousek, Macquarie University

Macquarie had Equella for copyright collection. Teachers email list to library and list made searchable in Primo by unit code (via daily pipe). Move to Leganto to address some issues. Can search library for items or upload your own pdfs, images, etc.

Pilot with faculty of Arts to create reading lists for 9 courses. Next semester another 11; 1 person had done it before and confident enough to try their own. Next semester 3 departments; not many came to session but a few still created own reading list; total of 120 reading lists created.

Feedback – added survey as a citation to reading lists – not many respondents as end of semester. Later survey added to Moodle directly to capture those not using the reading list and finding out why. Teachers liked how they could track how many used links and when (eg hour before class); ability to tag readings (eg literature review, assignment, extra); students like navigability and ability to suggest readings to teacher. Student satisfaction very high: clear layout, saved time chasing readings and can track reading in the week. Library staff liked layout, ease of learning/adding PCI records; Cite It! bookmarket.

Improvements people wanted was better integration with Moodle (lots of clicks to get to article); found it slow to load; students getting confused about whether discussions should be in Moodle or Leganto. Edge broke something so told students to use other browser. Want a ‘collapse all’ button for previous weeks to get straight to today’s: ExLibris are releasing this soon. Library staff want subsections functionality (ExL not going to do this, so using ‘notes’ feature instead.)

Adjustments needed by
* students – easier to find readings in Primo – but not all are there (esp articles, chapter scans), Leganto is source of truth. So have created Resource Recommender record to link to Leganto.
* teachers – want them to create their own reading list instead of submitting it by email (or at least to include layout information in those emails). And get them to use more variety of resources.
* library staff – more collaboration, reading lists are never complete until end of semester so have to be on top of it.

Improvements
* teacher finding more engagement as students aware they can see usage! Another planning to be more ‘playful’ with reading lists. Appearance of Leganto makes students more aware of resources as resources instead of just a list. Feeling will plan their teaching through Leganto. One teacher saying “These are the questions for the week, what are teh resources you’re using to answer them?”
* students can track which readings they’ve completed, can build own collection, can export in preferred referencing style.
* library staff have communication with teachers in Leganto; inclusion of all resource types (including web links using citation bookmarklet). Using public notes (eg trigger warnings)

4th stage of pilot will involve new departments, more volunteers by word of mouth. Need better communication/training eg presentations at dept meetings.

OER not currently dealt with – functionality maybe to come – can add CC license within a reading list but then depends on how widely you share that reading list!

Ex Libris company / product updates #anzreg2018

Ex Libris company update
Bar Veinstein, President Ex Libris

  • in 85 of top 100 unis; 65million api calls/month; percentage of new sales that are in cloud up from 16% in 2009 to 96% in 2017; 92% customer satisfaction
  • Pivot for exploration of funding/collaboration https://www.proquest.com/products-services/Pivot.html
  • aim to develop solutions sustainably so not a proliferation of systems for developing needs
  • looking at more AI to develop recommendation eg “high patron demand for 8 titles. review and purchase?”, “based on usage patterns, you should move 46 titles from closed stacks to open shelves?”, “your interloans rota needs load balancing, configure now?”, “you’ve got usage from vendors who provide SUSHI accounts you haven’t set up yet, do that now?”, algorithms around SUSHI vs usage.
  • serious about retaining Primo/Summon; shared content and metadata
  • Primo VE – realtime updates. Trying to reduce complexity of Primo Back Office (pipes etc – but unclear what replaces this when pipes are “all gone”)
  • RefWorks not just for end user but also aggregated analytics on cloud platform. Should this be connected/equal to eshelf on Primo?
  • Leganto – ‘wanting to get libraries closer to teaching and learning’ – tracking whether instructors are actually using it and big jumps between semesters.
  • developing app services (ux, workflow, collaboration, analytics, shared data) and infrastructure services (agile, multi-tenancy, open apis, metadata schemas, auth) on top of cloud platform – if you’ve got one thing with them very quick to implement another because they already know how you’re set up.
  • principles of openness: more transactions now via api than staff direct action.
  • https://trust.exlibrisgroup.com/
  • Proquest issues – ExL & PQ passing the customer service buck, so to align this. Eg being able to transfer support cases directly across between Salesforce instances.

Ex Libris prodct presentation
Oren Beit-Arie, Ex Libris Chief Strategy Officer

  • 1980s acquisitions not part of library systems -> integrated library systems
  • 2000s e-resource mgmt not part of ILS -> library services platform (‘unified resource mgmt system’)
  • now teaching/learning/research not part of LSPs -> … Ex Libris’s view of a cloud ‘higher education platform’
  • Leganto
    – course reading lists; copyright compliance; integration with Alma/Primo/learning management system
    – improve teaching and learning experience; student engagement; library efficiency; compliance; maximise use of library collections
    – Alma workflows, creation of OpenURLs…
  • Esploro
    – in dev
    – RIMs
    – planning – discovery and analysis – writing – publication – outreach – assessment
    – researchers (publish, publish, publish); librarians (provide research services); research office (increase research funding/impact)
    – [venn diagram] research admin systems [research master]; research data mgmt systems [figshare]; institutional repositories [dspace]; current research information systems [elements]
    – pain points for rseearchers: too may systems, overhead, lack of incentive, hard to keep public profile up to date
    – for research office – research output of the uni, lack of metrics, hard to track output and impact, risk of noncompliance
    – next gen research repository: all assets; automated capture (don’t expect all content to be in repository); enrichment of metadata
    – showcase research via discovery/portals; automated researcher profiles; research benchmarks/metrics
    – different assets including creative works, research data, activities
    – metadata curation and enrichment (whether direct deposit, mediated deposit, automatic capture) through partnerships with other parties (data then flows both ways, with consent)
    – guiding principles: not to change researchers’ habits; not to create more work for librarians; not to be another ‘point solution’ (interoperable)
    – parses pdf from upload for metadata (also checks against Primo etc). Keywords suggested based on researcher profile
    – deposit management, apc requests, dmp management etc in “Research” tab on Alma
    – allows analytics of eg journals in library containing articles published by faculty
    – tries to track relationships with datasets
    – public view essentially a discovery layer (it’s very Primo NewUI with bonus document viewer – possibly just an extra view) for research assets – colocates article with related dataset
    – however have essentially ruled research administration systems out of scope as starting where their strength is. Do have Pivot however.