Indiana University (IU) Libraries hosts a three-day Primary Source Immersion Program (PSIP) for instructors, to help them integrate primary sources into existing or new courses and foster their students' information literacy skills in relation to primary sources. PSIP draws on the rich collections of IU Libraries, including University Archives, the Lilly Library for rare books and special collections, and the Herman B Wells Library Map Collections. PSIP began as a collaborative endeavor among instructors, archivists, special collections librarians, teaching librarians and collection managers, and has quickly become a support structure allowing for ongoing collaborations across a large university. This article describes the creation of the Primary Source Immersion Program, including the development of primary source-specific rubrics which were informed by the ACRL Information Literacy Framework and the SAA/RBMS Primary Source Literacy Guidelines. We demonstrate how the pre-PSIP landscape of primary source instruction on campus evolved to be more collaborative after the introduction of PSIP, briefly describe what happens during the three-day workshop, and offer several case studies which highlight resulting semester-long collaborations between instructors and librarians related to maps and spatial literacy. Finally, we discuss future directions for maps/spatial literacy that have grown as a result of PSIP.

One long-held belief in archival education is that physical primary sources engage students more effectively than digitized sources do. This investigation questions that belief by analyzing whether and to what extent the format of a primary source impacts student engagement and learning, using a controlled study of students in a business ethics course. The findings suggest that, in instruction requiring the rhetorical analysis of a primary source, digitized primary sources may engage and contribute to student learning just as effectively as physical sources. These findings have significant implications for primary source pedagogy.

Purpose This paper aims to demonstrate the variety of ways institutions and their libraries approach student success both conceptionally and operationally. Design/methodology/approach Librarians from nine different institutions of higher education were given a series of questions about student success on their campuses and in their libraries. They responded with written essays describing their experiences and perspectives. Findings The contributed pieces are collected together and display a shared interest in defining “student success,” aligning strategic planning with student success initiatives and establishing (and assessing) strong infrastructure to support student success. Originality/value These examples help us observe what is happening throughout higher education and see potential paths forward at our own institutions engaged in this work.

Pause for a moment and consider something tiny, yet absolutely fundamental to libraries. Consider the many words that we as a profession use to describe the people who use our libraries. Most of the words we use to refer to the people who use our libraries are transactional rather than relational. I’ve long had difficulty with most of these words, finding myself chafing against their usage, connotations, and general feeling. For instance, calling the people who use our libraries customers isn’t right. We aren’t selling products and they aren’t buying. Customer base, client, or consumer are even further from the target, although I have seen these words used.

No abstract