Vision Statement University of Oregon Science ... - Office of Planning

May 2011Vision StatementUniversity of Oregon Science LibraryShepley Bulfinch

Preface21st Century Science Commons and LibraryThe University of Oregon is in the initial planning stages for a new Science Commons and Library. Informationtechnology has drastically changed the services and configuration of all libraries, but this is particularlytrue in the sciences. Up until the early 1990s, the curriculum and information infrastructure needed tosupport the scientific disciplines remained relatively stable. Now, in 2011, the world faces a new arrayof scientific problems and challenges that are significantly different than those which existed previously.Today’s scientific problems are very much interdisciplinary, requiring extensive use of advanced computingcapabilities, access to the most detailed and current data, and facilities that encourage and supportcollaboration with teams of researchers on campus and throughout the global scholarly community.Although the library’s current location on campus is desirable, the facility has many physical challengesthat limit our ability to respond to changing teaching, learning, and research needs. Initially built in the1960s, the library was modestly expanded in the early 1990s. Despite its limitations, the Science Libraryremains a magnet for students, and in the past few years it has seen double-digit growth in use. Part ofthis is due to higher enrollments and increases in the number of science majors in disciplines such asHuman Physiology. Part is also due to the general rise in library use as students take advantage of thecollections, technology, expertise, and an environment that supports these intellectual pursuits.As the university continues its substantial strategic investment in the physical and life science, weneed a library that supports this direction. A new Science Commons and Library is part of the renewedinfrastructure necessary to support advanced research and problem solving in a variety of scientificdisciplines. The facility should be designed to promote collaboration, experimentation, and investigation.It will further help to strengthen our tradition of interdisciplinary research by drawing students and facultyfrom across the scientific disciplines, centers, and institutes to a common space that includes the mostsophisticated information technology and the rich collections that constitute the foundation for learningand new research. Emphasis will be placed on expanded access to digital content, as well as servicesrelated to informatics and the curation of data. New services could include visualization laboratories andother learning and research spaced designed to collect, analyze and display data.The attached vision statement represents a collaborative effort with Shepley Bulfinch. The firm workedwith the University of Oregon during the expansion and renovation of Knight Library in the 1990’s, and hasa long and stellar reputation within the library community. The vision statement is the first step in thedesign and construction process. It will be used as a communication tool with campus stakeholders anddonors who are committed to the advancement of scientific learning and discovery.Deborah CarverPhilip H. Knight Dean of LibrariesUniversity of Oregon

Creating a New Library for the SciencesSupporting Science Research and LearningExcellence in science research and education at theUniversity of Oregon (UO) is central to the academic planof the University and its role as the “flagship” institution inthe Oregon University System. Environments that supportsignature and foundational science programs, and graduateand undergraduate research, are vital to the continuedrecognition of UO as one of the nation’s premier publicuniversities. A robust library that inspires research andfosters deep learning is essential to science education, andprovides a competitive edge in attracting top students andfaculty.A New Paradigm for the Science LibraryCreating a holistic framework of support for faculty andstudent endeavors is intrinsic to the role of today’s sciencelibraries. Information resources for science research andlearning are now primarily digital in format and ubiquitouslyaccessible once they are licensed for campus. Evolvingmodes of teaching, learning and research are placing newdemands on science libraries through the• increasing demand for richly supported informal learningenvironments• growing role of interactive computational tools andinterfaces• increasing complexity of the information environmentand the need for expertise to navigate that environment• expanding place of interdisciplinary scholarship in thescience curriculumIn this new educational paradigm, the science library plays avital role in curating virtual as well as physical information,teaching information research skills and assisting thescience community with information discernment. No longermerely a repository for print information, today’s library forthe sciences is a vibrant facility that inspires explorationand discovery, and enhances visibility of the sciencesto the University and to the public. Varied environmentsthat are flexible and technologically robust, support study,collaboration and instruction and serve as an academicintegrator within the science community and university-wide.Today’s science library is a dynamic learning laboratoryproviding opportunities for hands-on inspiration and a wealthof resources, tools and expertise.top to bottomUniversity of Oregon is one of the contest sites for the ACMInternational Collegiate Programming ContestDr. Madonna Moss’ Zooarchaeology Lab which houses several ongoingprojects and a comparative faunal collection1Shepley Bulfinch I May 2011

clockwise from top leftEmory University Chemistry Library: service point and project seatingWilliams College Science Library: gallery spaceBrown University Science Library Friedman Study Center: student seatingUniversity of Michigan Computer Science Learning Center: cafe/ community spaceDuke University Link: flexible instruction spaceVision Statement I University of Oregon Library for the Sciences2

Recognizing Current Space LimitationsThe University of Oregon’s (UO) current science library facilityis located on the lowest level of Klamath Hall and occupies27,400 gross sq. ft. The Library houses physical collections,study seating, and instructional and office space. The libraryis accessed through the ground level of the Onyx Bridge andlocated primarily in Klamath Hall (constructed in 1967).With the construction of Cascade Hall in 1989, the librarywas expanded to accommodate changing staff needs andgrowing physical collections. A sunken courtyard brings somedaylight into the lower level spaces, however natural light islacking in most areas. Due primarily to lack of funding forlarge scale library renovations, large portions of the library’sspaces remain as planned and equipped almost 45 yearsago.The library’s low-use print collections occupy over 50% of theavailable space, limiting the amount of seating available toaccommodate study, research and learning activities. Thepredominance of the print collections contributes to afirst impression of a library facility that is not in-step withcurrent science research practices. Enclosed space forstudents to work together is lacking, though collaborativeprojects are a primary component of UO’s science andresearch curriculum. Staff work spaces are remote fromareas of public interface and the primary service desk isrepresentative of an outmoded service model. In general,staff areas reflect a primary function to support theprocessing and distribution of print materials rather thanthe array of interactive consultation based services currentlyprovided by the library’s science information specialists.Although the library has the potential to be an intellectualhub providing places for interdisciplinary connection andspecialized instruction, meeting and teaching spaces inthe current library are undersized and common spacessupporting informal learning are non-existent.Recent, modest improvements to the interior of the Library,such as the expansion and improvement of seating areasand the creation of the anatomy room, have led to a dramaticincrease in gate-counts in the science library, demonstratingthe importance of the library as a central place for study andlearning within the science community.clockwise from top leftUO Science Libary:entrycarrel seating adjacent to the courtyard3Shepley Bulfinch I May 2011

clockwise from top rightUO Science Libarry:open seatinggroup studyreference shelvingcourtyardentry viewVision Statement I University of Oregon Library for the Sciences 4

Remaking the UO Science LibraryIn 2011, the opportunity exists to dramatically transformthe library’s physical space, leapfrogging over programand design trends of the past 45 years to implement acompelling, forward looking plan to remake the UO ScienceLibrary.Substantially rethinking existing library programs and spaceswill create a revitalized library that will carry the Universityforward and set the stage for a future possible expansion.Immediate incremental renovations will emphasizeprograms that create new capabilities for the science libraryin support of collaborative learning, interdisciplinary work,and integrative programs, re-invigorating the science libraryas a new, dynamic hub for science community interaction.manipulation and visualization, whose success depends onboth library and technology expertise.The central location of the existing library is valuable andsupports the opportunity for greater integration with thescience community. When the University eventually replacesOnyx Bridge with a new facility, the library could be expandedfrom its current location to new, more visible and easilyaccessible space.Priority space needs to deliver the transformed sciencelibrary are:• A central community space to facilitate interaction andconnection• Collaborative study space to support evolving modesof teaching• Visible and expanded services to promote explorationand discovery• Flexible spaces that facilitate testing andexperimentation• Increased natural lightExpanded and improved library space will provide visibility forlibrary services and enhance support for research and studywithin the science community. In order to deliver the rangeof services expected from today’s science library, physicalspace should be reallocated to provide approximately halfas much area for print collections and twice as much forpatron areas dedicated to study, research, learning, andcollaboration.Renovations to create more contiguous space linking theScience Library and the Klamath academic computing labswill facilitate more robust services that leverage sharedexpertise of library and information technologies. Servicescould include digital production to facilitate knowledgecreation and collaborative endeavors such as datatop to bottomUO Science Library:new reference / help deskimproved open seating5Shepley Bulfinch I May 2011

top to bottomUO Science Libarry:envisioned adjacency diagramProgram summary bar graph, showingexisting and recommended spaceallocation27,394 gsf 28,927 gsfVision Statement I University of Oregon Library for the Sciences 6

Themes for the New Science LibraryThrough dialogue with science faculty, students, and libraryand academic computing staff, themes to guide a sciencelibrary transformation have emerged:Create CommunityFoster InteractionEnhance VisibilityInspire ResearchPreserve InformationPromote AccessInherent in these themes are a series of program and spacegoals that will shape the new library:Outreach / Interaction /CommunityGoal: Create a library that is central to the sciencecommunity and integrated (both virtually and physically)with the community as a whole. Provide spaces for sharingand presentation that are interactive and activity-based toengage both science and non-science students and faculty.To support this goal, library space should be porous, withmultiple entrances, including a welcoming, visible entrancefor visitors and the public, and interconnected with otherscience building functions. Space needs include:• Gathering / event space that is central, flexible andinformal to support lectures, events and presentationssimilar to “Science Pub”, allowing for a variety set-upsand equipped with excellent audio-visual systems tosupport events• Exhibit / display space providing multiple opportunitiesto feature research content, including digitalpresentations, “poster session” displays, and supportfor testing, demonstrations and experiments• A café or coffee area located for easy access by both thescience community and the larger University community• Flexible meeting spaces that can be reserved forfaculty functions and collaborative work, with videoconferencing and display capabilitiesSupporting Science Study and Researchtop to bottomBroad Institute, Cambridge, MA: real time research data displayAtlanta University Center R.Woodruff Library: flexible event/community spaceGeorgetown University International Law Center: cafe7Shepley Bulfinch I May 2011

Goal: Create a variety of study and research environmentsthat allow for engagement, interaction, collaboration, andquiet study. As a minimum, the current seat count (currentlyapproximately 198 non classroom seats) should be doubledto meet the needs of the science community. Space needsinclude:• Collaborative work rooms for 2-10:• Group work rooms with white boards and power (lowlevel mediation)• Group work rooms equipped with projection andvideo record/playback capabilities for presentationpractice, media viewing and peer tutoring (higherlevel of mediation)• Project rooms for longer term assignments toaccommodate faculty or student research usinglibrary resources, expertise or technology (withvisible controls)• Booths• Small group study rooms• Quiet seating areas:• “Destination” space / reading room to see and beseen, but quiet• Enclosed / semi-enclosed spaces for individualwork spread throughout the Library• Active seating areas with interactive technologiesdesigned to promote informal learning/ interaction andcollaboration with library staff and faculty peers• Large, high resolution interactive touch screens forgroup- data viewing and manipulation• Flexible areas to showcase discipline specificinformation content and create community• Collections / 3D models / materials on reserve /specialty softwareServices, Instruction and Content Visualizationtop to bottomDuke University Link: flexible collaborative space with writing surfacesColumbia University Science and Engineering Library: individual research carrelsArizona State University: decision theatreVision Statement I University of Oregon Library for the Sciences 8

Goal: Provide instructional spaces that support knowledgecreation, foster the interaction of library staff, students, andfaculty, and promote science literacy.Inclusion of these spaces within the library will provide forlibrary mediated support with scheduling, technology andset-up. By creating a porous boundary between classrooms,labs and the library, the library can become the “breakoutspace which allows learning conversations to startbefore class and continue after. Services should create an“Integrated Science Learning Center” that includes:• Flexible teaching spaces with reconfigurable furnitureincorporating or adjacent to break-out space for groupwork for ease of transition from classroom to individualtutoring/advising:• Robust audio-visual/ Technology infrastructure:smartboards/ touchscreens/ large screens forcollaborative work• Video conferencing capabilities that allow for use ofscience equipment (i.e. lab table, power)• Large, very high resolution display screens for dataprojection• Extensive services for writing/ projection• Library-mediated access, set up and help with useof technology• Library Service Portal: reference/ reserves/ circulation/ILL/ Equipment Loan/ “take-home” labs• Digital Resources and Media Creation Lab for:• Video editing, analysis and group viewing• Large format printing: posters• “Sandbox” for new software• Access to Proprietary software• Visualization/ immersion lab that is a flexible—“blackbox” that can be updated as technology evolves andsupport visualization of data/ GIS• Tutoring and group study space to services that supporthigh-level technology such as MATLABtop to bottomUniversity of Wisconsin: visualization labMcGill University: scale-up classroomsDuke University Link: group study with a variety of writing surfaces9Shepley Bulfinch I May 2011

Information ResourcesGoal: Facilitate access to information in all formats byacquiring/leasing pertinent material, preserving andmanaging research data, providing support for ease ofaccess to available resources, and engaging in activeoutreach to the University of Oregon community and beyond.• Develop a collection plan to reduce print collectionsspace by 50% through de-accessioning duplicate orobsolete materials, providing off-site storage andtransitioning to electronic formats• Invest in robust electronic collections and access to onlinedatabases, journals and other resources• Enhance support in archiving and curation of Universityproduced data and research• Enhance support of non-print “specimen” collectionsfor the physical sciencescounterclockwise from topBrown University, the Library Collection Annex: remote high-density storage facilityAtlanta University Center R.Woodruff Library: compact shelvingXavier UniversityVision Statement I University of Oregon Library for the Sciences 10

Design Guidelines for New SpaceFlexibility/ ConvertibilityEnsure the flexibility of spaces for multiple types of usersand multiple tasks:• Create a library that serves a variety of learning stylesfrom quiet to active collaborative study and promotesformal and informal learning• Organize and equip group study rooms for potentialuse as collaborative group study rooms, tutoring,project space and short term office space• Design service points for flexibility in location, access,and size• Provide moveable partitions/changeable walls ininstructional spaces to accommodate different sizeand types of classes and to connect instructionalspaces to break out areasTransparencyUtilize transparency to promote connection andunderstanding:• Provide different levels of spatial transparency throughuse of glass, open space, and sightlines to encouragesharing while maintaining user comfort• Create spaces that encourage visibility of work• Use glass and open space to increase penetration ofdaylight into interior spaces• Provide opportunities for distraction in moderation –for users to “see and be seen”PermeabilityProvide permeable boundaries to foster collaboration andinteraction:• Consider multiple access point to the library• Provide 24 hour access for individual and group work• Plan for access to staff spaces by library usersSustainabilityCreate spaces that express the commitment of theUniversity of Oregon to sustainability both through theuse of environmentally preferable products, materials andequipment and through operational efficiencies:• Optimize energy use• Enhance indoor environmental quality• Maximize the use of daylightTechnology InfrastructureIntegrate the technology infrastructure to provide seamlessand supported access to and use of material:• Allow enough space for the use of a variety of tools –both “high tech” and “low tech”• Plan for facilities to handle access and manipulationof data, conversion and media production• Consider integrated services providing sometechnology support within the libraryLightingProvide lighting to improve the quality of the userenvironment:• Maximize the penetration of daylight into both publicand private spaces, both at the perimeter walls andinto the interior spaces through transparency• Use indirect lighting and task lighting appropriate forthe space being lit• Provide operational controls that maximize energyefficiency• Plan for the ability to control lighting with directionallighting and dimmable lighting11Shepley Bulfinch I May 2011

clockwise from top leftQueens University Belfast McClay Library: daylight/natural ventilationJohns Hopkins University Comp Sci Building: visibilityStanford University: Institute of DesignDuke University Link: flexibility /convertibilityVision Statement I University of Oregon Library for the Sciences 12

ConclusionThe transformation of the University of Oregon ScienceLibrary will provide the University with a central place forinformal intellectual connection and interdisciplinaryresearch. By improving access and visibility, the library willdraw from the science community and the University atlarge to promote discussion and interaction; by connectingexisting library spaces with technology labs, the library willprovide contiguous space for access to information, use ofresources and knowledge creation; by increasing the flexibilityand variety of spaces available for study and research thelibrary will create opportunities for experimentation anddiscovery. The new Science Library will bring together facultyand students with technology and information resourcesin an environment that fosters collaborative, individual orconsultative work and supports research and learningneeds in the sciences today.Acknowledgments / CreditsThe Shepley Bulfinch team would like to thank the Universityof Oregon Library for the opportunity to assist the Universityin developing the vision for a new science library. The sciencelibrary has the opportunity to be a transformative facility forthe science community and the University at large. Mostimportantly it will represent UO’s commitment to researchin all aspects of the sciences and to the visibility of thesciences in the larger community.We hope that this study will serve as a valuable tool as theUniversity continues the evaluation and planning process.Our team is readily available to further assist you at anytimeand provide continued support for analysis or fundraising.ProcessShepley Bulfinch was engaged by the University of OregonLibrary to develop a vision for the Science Library in responseto changing paradigms shaping the role of the library inscience education, teaching and research. In addition toa review of existing library functions, the study considereda broader array of programs and spaces to supportinterdisciplinary science education, enable scholarship, andfoster intellectual community.The process was guided by a Project Steering Committee andincluded focus group meetings with faculty, undergraduateand graduate students, and staff.The vision was inspired by trends and best practices inscience library and learning facility design and is intended asa first step for the University in providing a broad frameworkfor future decisions about the physical space of the sciencelibrary and a basis for the development of project fundingstrategiespage14 clockwise from top leftGoucher College Athenaeum: event/ forum spaceMarquette University Law School: collaborative group study spaceUniversity of Michigan Duderstadt Center: project spaceGeorgia Tech: learning commonsDuke university Link: informal active seating13Shepley Bulfinch I May 2011

Appendix• Program Summary• Program Detail• Meeting Notes• Science Library Trends PresentationVision Statement I University of Oregon Library for the Sciences 16

SUMMARY SPACE ALLOCATIONScience Library Planning StudyUniversity of OregonFebruary 16, 2011!"#$%!"#$%&'()#(*+ ,-."//-*0-0&'()*$+,-%./+#.0,12*(*/!"#$%3 1$)2 34511$)2!%#/*.4#.0!/'05!"#$% 64578$)2 884911$)26.3/7'$/*8.#)!"#$%3 84569$)2 54:5:$)29*(7#75!%7-*$%:;0

SUMMARY SPACE ALLOCATIONScience Library Planning StudyUniversity of OregonFebruary 16, 2011Program DetailExisting SpaceBldgspacenumber/descriptionExistingQuantity Existing ASF Proposed Space ProposedQuantitysf / unitProposedASFPublic, Event, and Exhibit SpacesPublic, Event, and Exhibit SpacesLibrary Commons 60 seats 35 asf 2,100 asf Connection / event spaceCafé Seating 20 seats 30 asf 600 asfServery500 asfSubtotal Public/Social Spaces 0 seats 0 asf Subtotal Public/Social Spaces 80 asf 3,200 asfSeating and Study SpaceSeating and Study SpaceOpen Reading K 90 180 seats 5,000 asf Open Reading 280 seats 35 asf 9,800 asfOpen Reading C 21 708 asf Group Study Rooms 48 seats 30 asf 1,440 asf 8 roomsPhysiology & Anatomy Room K 70B 264 asf Project Rooms 12 seats 30 asf 360 asf 2 roomsOpen Lab C 21 708 asfGroup Study K 15A 8 seats 166 asfGroup Study / Seminar K 70A 16 seats 395 asfSubtotal Seating 204 seats 7,241 asf Subtotal Seating 340 asf 11,600 asfInstructional SpacesInstructional SpacesScience Library Tech Center C 22 20 seats 464 asf Digital Technology Lab 20 seats 45 asf 900 asfInstruction K 90C-D 28 seats 812 asf Instruction / Lab / Experiments / Presentation 20 seats 25 asf 500 asfClassroom 45 seats 25 asf 1,125 asfSubtotal Service Points 48 seats 1,276 asf Subtotal Service Points 85 asf 2,525 asfLibrary Service & AdministrationLibrary Service & Administration???? K 70 200 asf Librarian Offices 5 staff 150 asf 750 asfWorkroom K 70 0.5 students 981 asf Staff workstations 3 staff 100 asf 300 asfStaff Office K 70 2 staff 100 asf Student workstations 2 students 50 asf 100 asfWorkroom K 70C 72 asf Workroom 1 space 800 asf 800 asfFaculty Office C 14 1 staff 148 asf Service Points 1 space 500 asf 500 asfStaff Office K 70E 1 staff 81 asf Storage 1 space 250 asf 250 asfStaff Office K 90A 1 staff 187 asfStaff Office C 18 1 staff 145 asfStaff Office C 19 1 staff 280 asfStaff Office C 20 1 staff 118 asfStaff Office C 9 887 asfStorage C 7, 15, 17 256 asfStaff Kitchen C 8 122 asfConference Room C 13 8 seats 105 asfService Point K 90B 2.5 students 455 asfCard Catalogue K 90 800 asfSubtotal Library Service & Administration 8 staff 4,937 asf Subtotal Library Service & Administration 8 staff 2,700 asfCollectionsCollectionsReference Reference 56 DFS 20 asf 1,111 asf 6000 volumes; 3 shelves high; 6 vols / lfCollections K 90 610 DFS 12,190 asf Collections 372 DFS 20 asf 7,440 asf Assumes 125,000 vols; 7 shelves high; 8 vols / lf @85% capacityCollections C 21 71 DFS 1,416 asf CollectionsCollections (Cold Storage) C 23 334 asf Collections (Cold Storage) 350 asfSubtotal Collections 680 DFS 13,940 asf Subtotal Collections 428 DFS 8,902 asfTotal number of Patron Seats 204 seats Total number of Patron Seats 420 seatsTotal number of Library Instructional Seats 48 seats Total number of Library Instructional Seats 85 seatsTotal number of Staff Wkstn/Office Seats 8 staff Total number of Staff Wkstn/Office Seats 8 staffTotal number of Double Faced Sections 680 DFS Total number of Double Faced Sections 428 DFSTotal Volume Capacity 228,581 vols Total Volume Capacity 143,667 vols Including referenceTotal Net Area 27,394 asf Total Net Area 28,927 asf Enclosing the courtyard would add +/- 4,000 s.f. to GSFShepley Bulfinch

Memorandum of MeetingTo:From:Meeting/Tour ParticipantsSarah Felton, Shepley BulfinchSubject:University of Oregon Science Library StudyProject No.: 3920Project Goals – 12:00 PMWrap Up – 6:00 PMTuesday, 5 October 2010Date: Wednesday, 6 October 201012:00 PM - Meeting Participants:Janette Blackburn; Shepley BulfinchAndrew Bonamici; U of O, AUL for Instructional ServicesBarbara Butler, U of O, Librarian, Institute of Marine BiologyDeb Carver, U of O, Dean of LibrariesSarah Felton; Shepley BulfinchVictoria Mitchelll; U of O, Head, Science LibraryMark Watson; U of O, AUL for Collections & Access1) Re-cap of faculty meetings2) Vision for the Science Librarya) Interactive, hands-on, activity based (model – Science Museum, but at a differentlevel)b) Welcoming to communityi) bringing K-12 onto campusii) Campus does not want to be an ivory towerc) Exposure to science for all undergraduatesd) Not just about text, but about information (bones, rocks, visual displays .etc .)e) Sandboxf) Vision not so much for the distributed model of a science library (MIT)i) Loss of serendipitous discovery with distributed modelg) Undergraduate researchi) Commons(1) common ownership(2) Space used by others to share research(3) Vitalityh) Building that facilitates testing & experimentationi) Science Library has repeatedly hosted demonstrationsi) Space for faculty interaction (no faculty club\\Emc1\U\uore3920\4_notes\4.2_meetings\Final Meeting Notes _Word\101005_Project Steering Committee.docx

University of Oregon – Science LibraryProject Steering Committee Meetings5 October 2010Page 2j) Central forum space/atrium (Goucher College)i) Willamette Hall – used for events; café not successfulii) Science Pub – U of O researchers presenting their researchiii) Wiesstag facility in Portland (U of O Portland program)k) Head of Planning Office envisions a prominent integrated library in the location ofColumbia 150 to serve the Sciences and the Architecture and Allied Arts (AAA)programs.i) AAA desperate for spaceii) AAA wants their library with themiii) AAA world class rare book collection in Architectural Historyl) At minimum consider a renovation of the existing library3) Librariesa) Easily reach 10,000 people/day coming into libraries4) Science facility improvementsa) 3 phases:i) Lewis Integrated Science Building – in construction(1) Faculty and research labsii) Labs – Library?iii) Implosion of the Onyx Bridgeb) Funding backed up – state not able to issue any more bonds in this bienium5) Undergraduate Council developing initiatives to align and build cohesion in sciencegeneral education and in the humanities6) U of O enrollmenta) 23,800 head count (approximately 19,000 FTE)b) Academic Plan – 24,000 FTE, more socio-economic diversityc) Growth has happened more quickly than planned which has impacted the College ofArts and Sciences6:00 PM - Meeting Participants:Janette Blackburn; Shepley BulfinchAndrew Bonamici; U of O, AUL for Instructional ServicesDeb Carver, U of O, Dean of LibrariesSarah Felton; Shepley BulfinchVictoria Mitchelll; U of O, Head, Science LibraryMark Watson; U of O, AUL for Collections & Access1) If the vision is for a digital library, the resources have to match2) Classrooms in the library are ok – but not what the library is about3) Librarya) Productionb) Acquisitionc) Preservationd) Dissemination\\Emc1\U\uore3920\4_notes\4.2_meetings\Final Meeting Notes _Word\101005_Project Steering Committee.docx

University of Oregon – Science LibraryProject Steering Committee Meetings5 October 2010Page 34) Up to about 5 years ago focused on accommodation of growing collection – compactshelving request5) Collection accommodation projectionsa) Hard to know long term if less stack space will be needed (Carver)b) Need for shelving will decrease by at least 50% in the next 10 years (Watson)i) Costs are going to come downii) Availability will go upiii) Ability to choose electronic or print will go awayiv) Use of print is dropping6) What can we do with facilities and services to help with open access initiatives7) Next stepsa) Information needed by Shepley Bulfinchi) Space inventory – Planning officeii) Collection inventory informationiii) Seating informationb) Shepley Bulfinch to send draft meeting minutes to Deb Carver and Sheilac) Shepley Bulfinch create a list of possible program elements to discuss during thevideo conferenced) Video conference November 16 or 17The above is the authors’ best recollection of the discussions and decisions made during thisconference call. Any questions or comments should be addressed to the writer.\\Emc1\U\uore3920\4_notes\4.2_meetings\Final Meeting Notes _Word\101005_Project Steering Committee.docx

Memorandum of MeetingTo:From:Subject:Meeting/Tour ParticipantsSarah Felton, Shepley BulfinchUniversity of Oregon Science LibraryStudyIntroductions/Science Library TourTuesday, 5 October 2010Project No.: 3920Date: Wednesday, 6 October 2010Meeting Participants:Victoria Mitchelll; U of O, Head, Science LibraryDeb Carver, U of O, Dean of LibrariesMark Watson; U of O, AUL for Collections & AccessAndrew Bonamici; U of O, AUL for Instructional ServicesBarbara Butler, U of O, Librarian, Institute of Marine BiologyAnnie Zeidman-Karpinski; U of O, Science Reference Librarian (Computer Science, Math, Bio-medical)Brian Westra; U of O, Lorry I. Lokey Science Data Services LibrarianDean Walton; U of O, Librarian, Science Reference Librarian (Biology, Neuroscience, Environmental Studies)Janette Blackburn; Shepley BulfinchSarah Felton; Shepley Bulfinch1) Visiona) More of a digital placeb) Place for community/interactioni) Faculty with other facultyii) Graduate students with other graduate studentsc) Programs and spaces for people to shared) Other spaces to look at:i) Williams College Science Libraryii) Concordia University – atrium spaceiii) Denver – Health Sciences Library(1) Classroom with divider that comes from ceiling – works well2) Existing/Toura) No formal off-site shelvingb) Science Library has material stored outside the library on campusi) Retrievable within 24 hours\\Emc1\U\uore3920\4_notes\4.2_meetings\Final Meeting Notes _Word\101005_Intro_Tour.docx

University of Oregon – Science LibraryIntroductions & Tour5 October 2010Page 2c) Science Library approximately 40,000 s.f.d) Classroomsi) Difficult to findii) Video conferencing cart for use in classroomsiii) Laptop cart(1) effective for providing all students with a laptop that is configured with thesoftware and access they need for classiv) Size(1) Room A22 – 20-25 students (tight with 25)(2) Room B90 – 30-35(3) Need 35-40v) Students can schedule classrooms for use with big groupsvi) Professors would like desktop computers with front control consolee) Monitor at entry not effectivef) Flow of traffic difficultg) Anatomy room successfuli) Resources beyond print (bones, etc )ii) Creates community for anatomy students3) Science Complexa) New Lewis Integrated Science Building in constructioni) Primarily faculty labs/research spaceii) Place for faculty to meet across departmental linesb) Cloistered/compartmentalized4) Projecta) Fundingi) Oregon will not issue bonds unless half the funding is already in placeii) A vision is needed to begin fundraising for the projectiii) A lead gift is needed (5-7 million)iv) Campus priorities will shift depending on who has the capacity to raise money5) Action itemsa) Andrew Bonamici will send material to Shepley Bulfinchi) Study on informal learning spaces on campusThe above is the authors’ best recollection of the discussions and decisions made during thisconference call. Any questions or comments should be addressed to the writer.\\Emc1\U\uore3920\4_notes\4.2_meetings\Final Meeting Notes _Word\101005_Intro_Tour.docx

Memorandum of MeetingTo:From:Subject:Meeting/Tour ParticipantsSarah Felton, Shepley BulfinchIntroductions/Science Library TourTuesday, 5 October 2010Project No.:Date: Wednesday, 6 October 2010Meeting Participants:Daniel Berg; U of O Undergraduate Student, ChemistryJanette Blackburn; Shepley BulfinchSarah Felton; Shepley BulfinchNima Dinyari; U of O Graduate Student, PhysicsVictoria Mitchelll; U of O, Head, Science LibraryKimberly Montero; U of O Undergraduate Student, ChemistrySheena Moore; U of O Undergraduate Student, Environmental StudiesStan Mordensky; U of O Graduate Student, GeologyDash Vitullo; U of O Graduate Student, PhysicsChaowaroj Wanotayaroj; U of O Graduate Student, Physics1) Study, research needsa) Video conferencing (graduates) for collaboration with colleagues outside of U of Ob) Collectionsi) Come to library for journal articles and books 2-3 times per wk (graduate)ii) Easier to access the physical book (graduate and undergraduate)iii) Textbooks(1) Can’t carry them all(2) Only available if the professor puts them on reserveiv) Browsing new books (graduate)v) Electronic access(1) A lot of material not available directlyvi) ILL is difficult because most students doing research need to skim many manyarticles to see if they are relevant – may not need the requested articlec) Computing accessi) Database & software access that not affordable for student to have on laptop(1) Chemistry – software to build molecules(2) Statistical analysis software(3) Video analysis software\\Emc1\U\uore3920\4_notes\4.2_meetings\Final Meeting Notes _Word\101005_Student.docx

University of Oregon – Science LibraryStudent Focus GroupPage 2ii) There are not sufficient desktop computers in the library with accessiii) It would be valuable to integrate library and lab systems so that labs could beaccessed after hoursd) Study spacei) A variety of study spaces is needed including quiet spaces and more interactivespaces for collaborationii) Smaller rooms for smaller groups to collaborateiii) Problematic when single students are occupying large roomsiv) Occasionally use projectors in classrooms to practice presentations and usingspecialized softwaree) Visualization lab – students not sure it would get usedf) Library servicesi) Interaction with library staff important (graduate and undergraduate)g) Natural lighth) Essential to have it central to the science buildings for graduate students, who will nottake extra time to walk any distancei) Need longer hoursj) No established communication center with spaces that could be tasked to sharinginformation and research – could work in the libraryi) Faculty recruiting undergraduates to do research workii) Poster displayiii) Flatscreens – energy hogs and don’t workk) Art in the libraryl) Book scannerm) Location of library with relation to labs and access to library from labs set up tofacilitate moving lab discussion to library and allow for space for TA tutoringn) Provide a drop box outside of the library building to allow students to drop off materialat off-hours.The above is the authors’ best recollection of the discussions and decisions made during thisconference call. Any questions or comments should be addressed to the writer.\\Emc1\U\uore3920\4_notes\4.2_meetings\Final Meeting Notes _Word\101005_Student.docx

Memorandum of MeetingTo:From:Subject:Meeting/Tour ParticipantsSarah Felton, Shepley BulfinchUniversity of Oregon Science LibraryStudyFaculty Focus GroupsTuesday, 5 October 2010Project No.: 3920Date: Wednesday, 6 October 201010:00 AM - Meeting Participants:Janette Blackburn; Shepley BulfinchSarah Felton; Shepley BulfinchEmilie Hooft Toomey; U of O, Assistant Professor, Geological SciencesDean Livelybrooks; U of O, Senior Instructor, Physics DepartmentVictoria Mitchelll; U of O, Head, Science Library1) Collectionsa) Journals primarily accessed electronicallyb) If the library doesn’t have the material, requested and delivered electronically throughILLc) Current edition of textbook not available in library (Hooft Toomey)d) Sometimes get books from librarye) Graduate students use the textbooks a lotf) Geology - a lot of rock and mineral samples that are not catalogued2) Teaching/Classroom needsa) Video conferencing facilitiesi) Set up so that it can accommodate demonstrations and science experimentsii) Bend, Oregon – built in video conferencing facilities where the camera followsthe faculty memberb) Geology - use Blackboard for online workc) Labsi) Geology - traditional labsii) Physics(1) 100 level courses take home labs(2) A materials center for distribution of labs w/ necessary kits would be valuable(Univ. of Michigan Science Learning Center)d) Field tripsi) Currently put structural maps together in the field for field trips\\Emc1\U\uore3920\4_notes\4.2_meetings\Final Meeting Notes _Word\101005_Faculty_Focus.docx

University of Oregon: Science LibraryFaculty Focus Group Meetings5 October 2010Page 2ii) Potential for virtual field trips to prepares students (being done at PortlandCommunity College, Sylvania Campus – Undergraduate Catalytic Outreach andResearch Experience (UCORE) partner by Frank Granshaw)e) Classroom/teaching spacei) Teaching space with desktop computers/computer lab needed forinterdisciplinary teachingii) Need for comprehensive computational science course based in Mat Lab -currently done mostly within each department, but could would be a better classif shared.iii) Physics summer program bringing 25 students from community colleges oncampus to conduct research(1) Currently meet in B90(2) Use computers on wheels (COWS) – Dells not efficientf) Project Roomsi) Project rooms that can be set up long term for projects would be valuableii) Visible to non-science majorsiii) Space that might support interdisciplinary projectsg) Shared digital facility with local supporti) Facility for data analysis adjacent to support and a place for borrowing sharedhigh end equipment – eg. high speed camerasii) Emphasis on visualization – tools for research that allow students and faculty toanalyze and interpretiii) Create community and teach each otheriv) Needed software for video analysisv) Would it be used?h) Tutoring spacei) 200 level problem solving tutorialsii) Currently use Physics Reading Room3) Data Managementa) Geophysics –i) conduct their own data management using parallel computer clusters(1) located in Geology building(2) specifically designed for the work done in Geology department(3) Run parallel projects using Mat Labii) Archived by Instrument Consortium4) Interdisciplinary worka) Space for faculty interaction neededb) Non departmental location for interdisciplinary seminars neededc) Interdisciplinary work primarily with people at other institutions (Hooft Toomey)5) Generala) Enrollment has increased at U of O\\Emc1\U\uore3920\4_notes\4.2_meetings\Final Meeting Notes _Word\101005_Faculty_Focus.docx

University of Oregon: Science LibraryFaculty Focus Group Meetings5 October 2010Page 4e) Scale-up model of classroom would be ideal2:00 PM - Meeting Participants:Alice Barkan; U of O, Professor, BiologyJanette Blackburn; Shepley BulfinchBarbara Butler, U of O, Librarian, Institute of Marine BiologyJohn Conery; U of O, Professor, Computer and Information ScienceSarah Felton; Shepley BulfinchDan Gavin; U of O, Assistant Professor, GeographyJulie Haack; U of O, Assistant Department Head, ChemistryMarli Miller; U of O, Senior Instructor, Geological SciencesDean Walton; U of O, Librarian, Science Reference Librarian (Biology, Neuroscience, Environmental Studies)1) Researcha) All online; all virtual; things will be delivered electronically (Conery)b) Journals before 1985 will never be availablec) Errors in citations are rampantd) PHD research requires access to primary source materiale) Way to get to resources (ILL & digital document request)f) Immediate access is not an issue2) Teaching/Classrooms/Research needsa) Don’t push print on studentsb) 70-90% of students have laptops and can do labs on their own laptopsc) Labs need to be available to studentsd) Desperate for good teaching rooms: 20-30 students – better use of space than bookse) Interdisciplinary work between Chemistry and Product Design; space needs:i) Teaching space with white boards all around for sketch/brainstorming sessionsthen move thought process into modeling programsf) Sandbox space – not in departmentg) Geology – simultaneously using different technologies in teaching spacesh) Visualization lab – large screens, interactivei) Data driven – space where people can come together & show large sets of dataj) Video conferencing – collaboration across country (Oregon State University – usevideo-conferencing space for teaching)k) Computer lab w/ software installed and centralized supportl) Spatial component to every department – GIS labs already exist in Sissil Lab (SocialSciences) and in Knightm) Undergraduate researchi) 90% of undergraduate chemistry students participate in researchii) Students work in library to identify unknowns\\Emc1\U\uore3920\4_notes\4.2_meetings\Final Meeting Notes _Word\101005_Faculty_Focus.docx

University of Oregon: Science LibraryFaculty Focus Group Meetings5 October 2010Page 5iii) Students may rely on print resources where faculty may have access andstudents do not3) Spaces needed for TA’s to meet students that are wired with internet access4) Traditional library services needed for integrating subjects/disciplinesa) Students not adept electronically when bridging disciplines that don’t usually study5) Faculty mixers – different disciplinesa) Lounge space would be better if faculty could walk up and write on walls to presentwith access to multi-data input and software to do analysis.6) Data Managementa) Departments manage themselves while activeb) Archival material better catalogued for access and managed by librayr3:00 PM - Meeting Participants:Janette Blackburn; Shepley BulfinchGreg Bothun; U of O, Professor, PhysicsJim Brau; U of O, Professor, PhysicsSierra Dawson; U of O, Senior Instructor, Human Physiology; Program Director, Graduate Athletic TrainingBecky Dorsey; U of O, Professor, Geological SciencesSarah Felton; Shepley BulfinchTory Herman; U of O, Associate Professor, BiologyDana Johnston; U of O, Associate Dean Natural Science; Professor, Geological SciencesRaghu Parthasarathy; U of O, Assistant Professor, PhysicsAlan Rempel; U of O, Assistant Professor, Geological SciencesErik Selker; U of O, Professor, BiologyDean Walton; U of O, Librarian, Science Reference Librarian (Biology, Neuroscience, Environmental Studies)Brian Westra; U of O, Lorry I. Lokey Science Data Services Librarian1) Existing librarya) 7 years since been to Science Library (Bothun) – existing physical space uselessb) Anatomy study room has been really successfulc) Collectionsi) Books valuable – serendipity/browsingii) Students use textbooksd) Students using the library like a study hall2) Science library needs to be a facility where faculty can do something that they can’t do intheir offices or labsa) Data Visualization lab for large data setsi) NOAO – Science on a sphere – ONSI ballii) Facilities at Penn State, Perdue, Univ. of Washingtoniii) Teaching resourceb) library servicesi) Place to put ideas together, where you can get direction about who to talk to todo interdisciplinary work, and to explore ways of searching\\Emc1\U\uore3920\4_notes\4.2_meetings\Final Meeting Notes _Word\101005_Faculty_Focus.docx

University of Oregon: Science LibraryFaculty Focus Group Meetings5 October 2010Page 6ii) Collection of people with expertiseiii) Electronic access(1) Library plays a big role for faculty and grad students when they are travelling(2) Access to journals essential – needs expansionc) Video conferencing/online classroomd) Centralizing technology in libraryi) IT support functions currently located in McKenzie Halle) New library – a place for creationf) Place for creating communityi) Place to randomly run into people and talk to themii) Not just a set of resourcesiii) Seating for quiet and noisy interactions and scholarship3) Students future needsa) Video editing: multi-media w/ student supportb) Sound recording4) Find models for Science Libraries that work4:00 PM - Meeting Participants:Janette Blackburn; Shepley BulfinchLi-Shan Chou; U of O, Associate Professor, Human PhysiologySarah Felton; Shepley BulfinchSamantha Hopkins; U of O, Assistant Professor, Honors College GeologyLara Nesselroad, Manager, Science LibraryPatrick Phillips; U of O, Head of Department of Biology; Professor, BiologyDean Walton; U of O, Librarian, Subject Specialist: Biology, Neuroscience, and Environmental Studies1) Existing librarya) Faculty and graduate students don’t go to the libraries anymore (Phillips)b) Primary literature is electronic – journals (Phillips)c) Still checking out booksd) Uses physical journals in library and through ILL (Hopkins)e) Personal use has dropped – comes in 2x week to teach (Chou) – ILL is the onlyservice he currently usesf) Perception that physical aspect of library more of an undergraduate spaceg) Librarians out among the faculty – interaction between librarians and faculty nothappening in the library2) Teaching/Classroom/Research needsa) Library that facilitates electronic accessb) Interaction spaces for studentsc) Facilitates distance interactions\\Emc1\U\uore3920\4_notes\4.2_meetings\Final Meeting Notes _Word\101005_Faculty_Focus.docx

University of Oregon: Science LibraryFaculty Focus Group Meetings5 October 2010Page 7i) Video-conferencingd) Educational component of library becomes more important in a virtual librarye) Balance between delivering information and tradition of studyi) Flexible interactive study and education spaces (could be shared across all thesciences)ii) Peer tutoringiii) Educational servicesf) Important to keep the Science Library central to the science buildingsg) Visualization lab as a shared service – needed, but the library may not be the rightplace for ith) Denver Health Sciences – Flexible classroom spaces where you can have break outmodulesi) Define what is a library:i) Information storage and accessii) Beta instruction spaces are needed on campus, but are they part of the library?iii) Centralized location for research work being done on campusiv) Has a role in knowledge creation rather than just knowledge storage – impossibleto separate data storage from data creation – the way knowledge is storedaffects how the data is used to create new knowledgev) Public outreach function(1) Science pub works because it is in an informal setting and the event iscombined with foodj) CafeThe above is the authors’ best recollection of the discussions and decisions made during thisconference call. Any questions or comments should be addressed to the writer.\\Emc1\U\uore3920\4_notes\4.2_meetings\Final Meeting Notes _Word\101005_Faculty_Focus.docx

!"#$%&'()#$*!""+,'-.$/!""#$%&'()#$*$+(%#,0%$#/ -()(./"0#1%2-."+0"34506$%*.1)23"4+/7%$8"),$#3169)"&1%-*$"%*":$;)()3-#5$%&?)15+!""#$%&/";)5()3@A2BC@@DECCF!')"0$G$%()37+;5)%O-."+0"34506$%*.F%=(#,1%O71692F7:61)Q100"*#$1%,RF**",,@S 9)&(%$T(#$1%(0*.(%&",@S@S 4();45#0")$%#")$G."(

University of Oregon – Science LibraryProject Working Group Meetings17 February 2011Page 2AB5!CD)'4E!""+,'-!""+,'-5&%+,4,?&'+@N(%"##"40(*>;5)%O-."+0"34506$%*.F%=(#,1%O71692F7:61)Q100"*#$1%,RF**",,@SBSKSWS^SMS-*$"%*":$;)()3@S@S J$",

University of Oregon – Science LibraryProject Working Group Meetings17 February 2011Page 3MSKS J$G"0$%"FFF(%

University of Oregon – Science LibraryProject Working Group Meetings17 February 2011Page 4A/::5!C!""+,'-F,+E+E"8,%"4+$%$*;4&("#,4G'*$%#&+,$'1"%H,4"@!""+,'-5&%+,4,?&'+@N(%"##"40(*>;5)%O-."+0"34506$%*.F%

University of Oregon – Science LibraryProject Working Group Meetings17 February 2011Page 5^SMSAS_SWSKS@S [%8$)1%G"%#;1#.+.3,$*(0(%

University of Oregon – Science LibraryProject Working Group Meetings17 February 2011Page 7WSAS J"*.%101&3WSAS@S Q1G+0"\#"*.%101&3H$00%1#&"#5,"

!"#$%&'()#$*!""+,'-.$/!""#$%&'()*+,-+#$.$/-%#00%$#/ 1-+-23"4#)%512"/4"67*48$%.21)23"4+/9%$:"+0$#6)8;+"&)%1.$"%."65%$3"4+6$7/ DEAB1.$"%."$0/4-605"]/"+$M"%#0\\Emc1\U\uore3920\4_notes\4.2_meetings\Final Meeting Notes _Word\110217_Staff Meeting.docx

University of Oregon – Science LibraryScience Library Staff Meeting17 February 2011Page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`*0#8)+#2"/+)>*.#DSAS (".2%)4)&6-##2"=4"">$%&">&".-%=""]/"%0$:"-%>a*$.G46)*#>-#">DSDS 34"]$=$4$#6b$%.+"-0">84"]$=$4$#6$%#".2%)4)&6M-6+">*."*0"-=$4$#6H/$.G-%>.2))0"-+"-0)884"]$=$4$#6DSXS 1/-."08)+2$&2"%>#".2%)4)&6-%>:$0*-4$Y-#$)%DSXS?S P"">#".2%$.-40*//)+#DSZS J".)+>$%&DSZS?S C:-$4-=4"#)/")/4"$%-44>$88"+"%#>$0.$/4$%"0DSZSAS 1.$"%."4$#"+-.60#*>6&+)*/L+$#"0-+#$.4"0-=)*#2)L#)#"-.20.$"%."DSZSAS?S 8-.*4#6-%>&+->0#*>"%#0DSZSASAS I80)M"-+"*%-=4"#)-##"%>-M""#$%&#2"68$4M#2"2-%>0)%>"M)%0#+-#$)%0SS1#-88XS?S 1#-88L)+G-+"-0-%>)88$."002)*4>="*/8+)%#L2"+"":"+6#2$%&$02-//"%$%&bM)+":$0$=4"5M)+"-.."00$=4"S!)+"-/-+#)8L2-#$02-//"%$%&-##2"8+)%#)8#2"=*$4>$%&XSAS !)+".)44-=)+-#$)%0/-."0L$#2$%#2"0#-880/-."0$0%"">">#)/+)M)#".)44-=)+-#$)%-M)%&0#-88M"M="+01#*>6"%:$+)%M"%#0ZS?S Q2$#"=)-+>0-+":"+6"88".#$:"SZSAS c-+$"#6$%#6/"0)80#*>60/-."0ZSDS P)#-&6M#2-#.)*4>="-%-*>$#)+$*MZSXS 1#*>"%#0.-M"$%#)0""L2-#0/-."0#2"62-:"bL-%#">#).+"-#"-L"=/-&"#)2$&24$&2#0/-."0#)0#*>6ZSZS 1/-."08)+#*#)+0#)$%#"+-.#L$#20#*>"%#0ZSZS?S (*#)+0*%>"+0#-%>0/".$-4$Y">0)8#L-+"#2-#4$=+-+60#-88M-6%)#ZS_S O*=$.4"0'0#-#$)%08)+/")/4"L$#2>$0-=$4$#$"0%"">">1"+:$."/)$%#0_S?S N"0G0-.#-0=-++$"+0H>)%d#L-%#0#-88="2$%>>"0G0_SAS .)%:"+#$=4"0/-."0)#2-#0"+:$."/)$%#>"0G.)*4>=")/"%\\Emc1\U\uore3920\4_notes\4.2_meetings\Final Meeting Notes _Word\110217_Staff Meeting.docx

University of Oregon – Science LibraryScience Library Staff Meeting17 February 2011Page 3@S (+-%0/-+"%.6@S?S >$88"+"%#4":"40)8#+-%0/-+"%.6.)%#+)44">=6-0L$#.2eS P-#*+-44$&2#eS?S 2$&2/+$)+$#6)%%-#*+-44$&2#ES AX2)*+-.."00ES?S 0/-."8)+AX2)*+-.."00H/)00$=4602-+">L$#2)#2"+>"/-+#M"%#0-%>.)M/*#"+4-=0?BS 1".*+$#6?BS?S I%%):-#$:"L-60#)/+":"%##2"8#?BS?S?S ("M/)+-+6=-+.)>"0?BS?SAS "40W#2"0#""4.-0"f51.-4"*/5(gC8)+.)M/*#"+0$%.4-00+))M0??SDS?S #2)*&2##2"6L)*4>&)-L-65-%>#2"62-:"%d#??SDSAS 1#-+#$%&#)0""-.2-%&"??SDSDS 0"-#$%&V??SeS X4-+&".4-00+))M0$0#))M-%6H=*#.-%$M-&$%")%"4-+&".4-00+))M_B/")/4"??SES I0#2"4$=+-+6-4).-#$)%8)+-4-+&"-*>$#)+$*M0#64"4".#*+"2-44i?AS O)44".#$)%0?AS?S 1)M"0/-."L$44-4L-60="+"a*$+">?ASAS P)#`*0#/+$%#M-#"+$-4b/260$.-4)=`".#0?ASDS 3*#*+"84"]$=$4$#6)80/-.">">$.-#">#).)44".#$)%0$0$M/)+#-%#?ASXS O*++"%#*0")8/+$%#@j#2+)*&2)*##2"4$=+-+6?ASZS 7))G0-0>".)+-#$)%L$444$G"46-4L-60="/-+#)8#2"4$=+-+6?AS_S ,+$%#)%>"M-%>-%>0.-%%$%&8-.$4$#$"0L$44&+)L$%$M/)+#-%."?AS@S 1#*>"%#0-+"=".)M$%&4"00-##-.2">#)=))G0-%>>)%d#L-%##)2-:"#)&)#)02"4:"0?ASeS C=$4$#6#)=+)L0"$0$M/)+#-%##)0)M"/+)8"00)+0H/)00$=$4$#6)8:$+#*-4=+)L0$%&$%#2"8*#*+"?ASES I

University of Oregon – Science LibraryScience Library Staff Meeting17 February 2011Page 4?AS?BS O)M/-.#0#)+-&""]/"%0$:"-%>-M)*%#)8#$M"#2-#&)$%&#)2-:"/+$%#M-#"+$-4?DS N$88"+"%#$-#)+08)+#2"4$=+-+6?DS?S #))40?DSDS 50$%&4")+84"]$=4"?DSXS g%:$+)%M"%##2-#8-.$4$#-#"04"-+%$%&-%>.)44-=)+-#$)%?XS ,-+#%"+02$/)//)+#*%$#$"0?XS?S I%8)+M-#$.050#-#$0#$.0-%>-//4$">M-#2"M-#$.0?ZS 3-.$4$#6.2-+-.#"+$0#$.0?ZS?S ,)+)*0?ZS?S?S J"0"-+.24$=+-+$"00#$442-:"-%$%#$M$>-#$)%8-.#)+#)#2"M?ZS?SAS 9;4$=+-+6>$88"+"%#=".-*0"6)*.)*4>L-4G#2+)*&2#2"->M$%$0#+-#$)%)88$."H.2-%&"0#2">6%-M$.0)82)L/")/4"$%#"+-.#">L$#2/")/4"H4":"4)8$%#$M$>-#$)%.2-%&"0S?ZSAS 90"+0.)M"2"+"8)+a*$"#b.-%d#4)0"0$&2#)8$#?ZSDS 1/-."8)+.)44-=)+-#$)%H#2"+"$0%)#"%)*&20/-."0)%.-M/*08)+/")/4"#)L)+G#)&"#2"+?_S g]$0#$%&1.$"%."$%&?_SAS (2"#2$%G$%&$0+""%:$0$)%'"]/-%>"]$0#$%&0/-."S?_SDS 1$Y"b$0#2"8))#/+$%#)8#2""]$0#$%&4$=+-+6=$&"%)*&2#)>)L2-#%"">0#)=">)%"-0-1.$"%.""+&+)*%>"+&+)*%>b-#9)8!$.2$&-%bZ84))+0*%>"+&+)*%>(2"-=):"$0#2"-*#2)+0d="0#+".)44".#$)%)8#2">$0.*00$)%0-%>>".$0$)%0M->">*+$%&#2$0.)%8"+"%.".-44SC%6a*"0#$)%0)+.)MM"%#002)*4>="->>+"00">#)#2"L+$#"+S\\Emc1\U\uore3920\4_notes\4.2_meetings\Final Meeting Notes _Word\110217_Staff Meeting.docx

University of OregonRe-imagining the Science Library17 February 2011

Shepley Bulfinch1874 H.H.Richardson - 2011 Shepley Bulfinch1874 2011

Science Research and LearningA place to grow intoA good fit – characterDemocraticIntegratedPermeableLightChoiceTransparencyPeopleToolsInnovationDestination

Trends in Learning Space DesignFlexibilityCollaborationCommunityTechnologyInstructionStudy

Trends in Learning Space DesignFlexibilityCollaborationCommunityTechnologyInstructionStudy

Trends in Learning Space DesignFlexibilityCollaborationCommunityTechnologyInstructionStudy

Trends in Learning Space DesignFlexibilityCollaborationCommunityTechnologyInstructionStudy

Trends in Learning Space DesignFlexibilityCollaborationCommunityTechnologyInstructionStudy

Trends in Learning Space DesignFlexibilityCollaborationCommunityTechnologyInstructionStudy

Material Storage & AccessDecision criteriaSizeCostLogistical accessUser experienceFixed shelvingMobile shelvingAutomatic storage& retrievalOff site storage

New Strategies for Staff WorkspaceFlexibleCollaborativeVisibleAccessible

Library and Learning EnvironmentsToolsFurniturePlacemaking

Study Space Variety and Engagement

Study Space Mobility

Study Space Writeable Surfaces

Experimental Display Interactive Digital Projection

Experimental Display Holographic Projection

Study Space Variety and Engagement

Study SpaceFocused work zonesChangeable furniture

Study Space Enclosure

Outdoor Learning Space

Recent PrecedentsScience librariesLearning commonsInstructional spaces

Brown University Sciences Library

Brown University Sciences Library, Friedman Study Center

Brown University Sciences Library, Friedman Study Center

Brown University Sciences Library, Learning Center

Brown University Sciences Library, Learning Center

Williams College Schow Science Library

Emory University Info Resource Center with Chem Labs

Georgia Tech Learning Commons and Cafe

Georgia Tech Learning Commons and Cafe

Duke University LinkFlexible teaching spaces with technology supportAdjacent break-out spacesReconfigurable furniture and equipmentIT help deskPeer to peer technology support24/7 operationCollaborative work roomsDigital commons

Duke University Link

University of Michigan Science Learning Center

Columbia University Integrated Science Library

Princeton University Lewis Science Library

Princeton University Lewis Science Library

Princeton University Lewis Science Library

Robert Woodruff Library Learning Commons

TransformationRobert Woodruff Library, Learning Commons

Community SpaceGoucher College, Athaenaeum

Community SpaceConcordia University, Atrium Space

Community SpaceWillamette Hall

Project SpaceUniversity of Michigan, Duderstadt Center

Instructional Space SCALE-UP ModelSCALEUPtudententeredctivities forargenrollmentniversityhysics

Instructional Space SCALE-UP Model

Instructional Spaces TEAL Classroom

Digital Visualization Spaces

Digital VisualizationArizona State University Decision Theater

Digital VisualizationArizona State University Decision Theater

University of OregonRe-imagining the Science Library17 February 2011