Across the campuses and around the globe: Reaching online learners through high-level embedded librarianship

References

• Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL). (2016). Standards for distance learning library services. ACRL. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/guidelinesdistancelearning
   Google Scholar
• Allen, S. (2017). Mapping uncharted territory: Launching an online embedded librarian program. Journal of Library & Information Services in Distance Learning, 11(1–2), 251–261. doi:10.1080/1533290X.2016.1193416
   Google Scholar
• Almedia, N., & Pollack, J. (2017). In bed with the library: A critical exploration of embedded librarianship at the City University of New York. Communications in Information Literacy, 11(1), 122–146. Retrieved from http://www.comminfolit.org/index.php?journal=cil&page=article&op= view&path%5B%5D = v11i1p122
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Artman, M., Frisicaro-Pawlowski, E., & Monge, R. (2010). Not just one shot: Extending the dialogue about information literacy in composition classes. Composition Studies, 38(2), 93–110. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/compstud.38.2.0093.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Association of College and Research Libraries. (2015). Framework for information literacy for higher education. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/ilframework
   Google Scholar
• Association of College and Research Libraries. (2016). Standards for distance learning library services. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/guidelinesdistancelearning
   Google Scholar
• Burke, J. J., & Tumbleson, B. E. (2016). LMS embedded librarianship and the educational role of librarians. Library Technology Reports, 52(2), 5–9.
   Google Scholar
• Carr-Chellman, A., & Duchastel, P. (2000). The ideal online course. British Journal of Educational Technology, 31(3), 229–241. doi:10.1111/1467-8535.00154
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, S. (2010). The view of scientific inquiry conveyed by simulation-based virtual laboratories. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1123–1130. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.05.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dennen, V. P., Darabi, A. A., & Smith, L. J. (2007). Instructor-learner interaction in online courses: The relative perceived importance of particular instructor actions on performance and satisfaction. Distance Education, 28(1), 65–79. doi:10.1080/01587910701305319
   Google Scholar
• Dewey, B. I. (2004). The embedded librarian. Resource Sharing & Information Networks, 17(1–2), 5–17. doi:10.1300/J121v17n01_02
   Google Scholar
• Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilitating cognitive presence in online learning: Interaction is not enough. The American Journal of Distance Education, 19(3), 133–148. doi:10.1207/s15389286ajde1903_2
   Google Scholar
• Guo, Y., Klein, B., Young, R., & Rossin, D. (2007). The impact of flow on learning outcomes in a graduate-level information management course. Journal of Global Business Issues, 1(2), 31–39.
   Google Scholar
• Heathcock, K. (2015). Embedded librarians: Just-in-time or just-in-case? A research study. Journal of Library & Information Services in Distance Learning, 9(1–2), 1–16. doi:10.1080/1533290X.2014.945877
   Google Scholar
• Hoffman, S. (2011). Embedded academic librarian experiences in online courses. Library Management, 32(6/7), 444–456. doi:10.1108/01435121111158583
   Google Scholar
• Ismail, L. (2011). Getting personal: Reaching out to adult learners through a course management system. The Reference Librarian, 52(3), 244–262. doi:10.1080/02763877.2011.556993
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., & Freeman, A. (2015). NMC Horizon Report: 2015 library edition. Austin. Retrieved from http://cdn.nmc.org/media/2015-nmc-horizon-report-library-EN.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Matthew, V., & Schroeder, A. (2006). The embedded librarian program. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 29(4), 61–65. Retrieved from http://er.educause.edu/∼/media/files/articles/2006/11/eqm06410.pdf?la=en
   Google Scholar
• Mery, Y., Newby, J., & Peng, K. (2012). Performance-based assessment in an online course: Comparing different types of information literacy instruction. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 12(3), 283–298. doi:10.1353/pla.2012.0029
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyer, J. H. F., Land, R., & Davies, P. (2008). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge: Issues of variation and variability. In R. Land, J. H. F. Meyer, & J. Smith (Eds.), Threshold concepts within the disciplines (pp. 59–74). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (2011). Distance education: A systems view of online learning (2nd ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
   Google Scholar
• Oh, E. G., & Reeves, T. C. (2015). Collaborating online: A logic model of online collaborative group work for adult learners. International Journal of Online Pedagogy and Course Design, 5(3), 47. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.4018/ijopcd.2015070104
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raish, V. (2016). A content analysis of virtual science labs in cyber charter schools (Doctoral dissertation). Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA. Retrieved from Penn State ETD. (Accession d791sg170).
   Google Scholar
• Raish, V. (2018). A link in every syllabus. Journal of New Librarianship.
   Google Scholar
• Tilley, E. (2016). The cost-effective service: Is personalized possible? In A. Priestner & E. Tilley (Eds.), Personalizing library services in higher education: The boutique approach (pp. 163–182). New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Wiley, D. (2006). Scalability and sociability in online learning environments. In H. F. O’Neil & R. S. Perez (Eds.), Web-based learning: Theory, research and practice (pp. 296–306). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• York, A. C., & Vance, J. M. (2009). Taking library instruction into the online classroom: Best practices for embedded librarians. Journal of Library Administration, 49(1–2), 197–209. Retrieved from https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/01930820802312995
   Google Scholar