PurposeOwing to the growing number of online and commuting students at the University of West Georgia, the Instructional Services department at Ingram Library experimented with offering online synchronous library instruction. This paper aims to describe how it approached this problem and the findings from the initial attempts.Design/methodology/approachThe authors wanted to provide library instruction to online graduate students at the university. They worked with the staff development department to develop a pilot program for an online library instruction course using WIMBA web‐conferencing software.FindingsIt was found that due to the limitations of technology, the authors had to reduce the amount of information they deliver in the same amount of time. It was also discovered that it is easy to be distracted by the technology and forget that clear communication with the users (students and faculty) are the key to any successful instruction program regardless of the delivery method.Originality/valueMost libraries offer face‐to‐face library instruction and rely on tutorials to reach their distance education and non‐traditional students. Few libraries are using distance education tools to teach information literacy skills. As librarians begin to explore this avenue, they need to re‐evaluate how and what they teach students to better leverage the technology while reaching the same information literacy objectives.

If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. AbstractPurpose -This instructive study intends to demonstrate the value of investing time and training in the development of student workers who are able to perform higher order tasks like reference work in academic libraries, specifically, the information commons. This practice will provide more time for librarians to devote to more advanced reference queries, instruction, collaboration, outreach, and collection development. Design/methodology/approach -The approach to determining the value of time spent training student assistants included a literature review, surveys of librarians and staff from a variety of academic libraries, and group discussions at three conferences. Findings -The literature review conducted prior to the collection of survey data showed fairly consistent opinions regarding the value of student assistants working at the reference desk. The survey data collected in the study showed that the majority of librarians have a favorable opinion of the ability of student assistants, when well trained, to answer basic reference questions.Research limitations/implications -The survey used for this study is designed to gauge opinions and attitudes from librarians and library staff. Questions included in the survey are primarily demographic or open-ended. The survey is distributed using a variety of e-mail lists and social networking tools. In total, 90 survey responses are received, and a larger sample size may be preferable to more long-term, in-depth study of this topic. Originality/value -The study summarizes and further contributes to the existing body of research about student workers in academic libraries. Readers will find a summation of training methods, core competencies, and best practices to help them to fully utilize student workers in new ways.

PurposeWith Complete College America and renewed interest in performance‐based funding models for higher education, colleges are focused on improving retention, progression and graduation rates. Many schools bring lower‐achieving students to campus for a pre‐first‐year program called Summer Bridge to give them an introduction to college. These summer programs have varying levels of library involvement. The authors aim to compare the level of library involvement at their institution with that of libraries where similar programs exist.Design/methodology/approachThe authors searched for schools with summer bridge programs, read through their program descriptions to find ones that were similar to their own situation (e.g. not STEM‐focused or Upward Bound), and sent a survey to 103 libraries. In total, 42 responded.FindingsOf the responding libraries 88 percent have face‐to‐face instruction with the summer bridge participants, however only 33 percent of the libraries did any assessment of this contact. Ten of the respondents teach credit‐bearing information literacy courses, but none offers this to the summer bridge students.Practical implicationsMany states require institutions to demonstrate student success in order to compete for limited state funds. Libraries have an important role to student success and librarians should strategically place themselves within that conversation. This article provides some possible means to help with summer bridge students.Originality/valueA search through library and education literature reveals that little has been written about library involvement with programs that are not Upward Bound affiliated. This case study and its survey respond to a gap in the literature of both fields.

No abstract

No abstract