Virtual Reference Services and Instruction

Abstract

This paper assesses the incorporation of instruction in library virtual reference services (VRS), and explores whether the rate, and nature of instruction provided to patrons during VRS sessions is different than that provided during face-to-face reference. The Penn State VRS was used as a case study in this assessment. An analysis of a sample of archived Penn State VRS transcripts was conducted to assess the nature and quantity of instruction provided based on the presence of defined instructional elements incorporated in the sessions. The paper discusses the similarities and differences in approach to instruction during VRS and face-to-face reference, and how these relate to overall instructional services in academic libraries. The paper also reviews findings of some similar studies cited in the literature. The findings of this study indicate that there is a significant amount of instruction taking place during both face-to-face reference and VRS. Furthermore, the approach to instruction in both reference environments is very similar. However, the VRS system in use at Penn State (LSSI Virtual Reference Toolkit), because of its technological features and capability, has facilLesley M. Moyo is Head, Gateway Libraries (i.e., the Gateway Commons, an electronic reference center and the Pollock

Teaching and User Satisfaction in an Academic Chat Reference Consortium

“…These skills correspond to standards one and two of ACRL's Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education (Avery & Ward, 2010;Devlin et al, 2007;Ellis, 2004;Smyth, 2003) and the concepts of "Searching as Strategic Exploration" and "Research as Inquiry" from ACRL's Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education (Hunter et al, 2019). Reflecting this emphasis, the most common teaching techniques on chat are resource or keyword suggestion and modelling or leading the patron through the search process Hervieux & Tummon, 2018;Moyo, 2006).…”

“…Hervieux and Tummon (2018) and Taddeo and Hackenberg (2006) found low levels of teaching on their chat services, with 23% and 26% of chats showing evidence of information literacy instruction, respectively. However, most single-institution chat services have found that from 60 to 95% of transactions demonstrate instances of teaching (Dempsey, 2017;Johnston, 2003;Moyo, 2006;Oakleaf & VanScoy, 2010;Ward, 2004;Zhuo et al, 2006). A study of NCKnows, North Carolina's statewide chat reference collaborative, also found Barrett et al Teaching and User Satisfaction INFORMATION LITERACY | VOL.…”

Referring academic library chat reference patrons: how subject librarians decide

“…384-385) Ward and Jacoby recommended building ongoing relationships with subject specialists, offering a referral early in a chat and recognizing when patrons needed to build core research skills (Ward and Jacoby, 2018, p. 123). Thus, the literature suggests that virtual reference best practices of reference interviewing, resource provision (Dempsey, 2017) and instruction (Avery and Ward, 2010;Gronemyer and Deitering, 2009;Moyo, 2006;Oakleaf and VanScoy, 2010;Woodard, 2005) should be expanded to include making users aware of the full range of services available.…”

Instructional Strategies for Digital Reference

“…For example, Moyo identifies the integration of instruction into reference service as a "growing need." 1 Beck and Turner point out that in-person reference transactions occur at the user' s time of need, when they are most open to learning. 2 Elmborg describes instruction provided via reference service as "'authentic' in that the student has a specific project underway and has specific questions regarding how to proceed."…”