Too much noise in the LRC? [Image by jorivando]

Social software is something of a mixed blessing for librarians. On the one hand it offers a potential way to reach out to and communicate with our users; but on the other hand many librarians bemoan the fact that some students seem to be sat at our library PCs just using sites like FaceBook instead of doing their assignments. This means that students needing to use the PCs for work may be losing out; sometimes this social use leads to disruption and noise; and there may be further concerns about related topics such as academic standards, e-safety, network security etc. It is no wonder that it is a topic that occurs often, usually as a survey:

• A recent survey on the CoFHE list about managing behaviour in the LRC [March 2010], and another about FaceBook usage in FE [April 2010]
• Alyson Tyler mentioned a potential new Web 2.0 survey of libraries in Wales on the FE-LRC-WALES list. The survey would include finding out if libraries/institutions block access to social software sites. They’re hoping to run the survey in March or April. [February 2010]
• A survey on LIS-LINK asking whether libraries ban FaceBook, some responses can be read here and here. The conclusion was that “the overwhelming majority do not, and have no plans to, ban facebook use” The anonymised results can be downloaded here. [November 2010]
• One of my colleagues in the JISC Regional Support Centre West Midlands asked LIS-LINKers whether they banned YouTube access; out of 41 replies only three institutions blocked YouTube outright [October 2009]

Three main aspects

The whole issue of managing access to (and use of) social software in education is something that is continually being debated, not just by librarians. There are three aspects.

1. E-safety / student safeguarding: managing access to social software in order to protect students (concerns like cyberbullying). There can be an element of giving students the skills to navigate the web safely, and obviously information literacy is an important driver here. If this area is of interest then tools like this online safety planner can be useful. RSC London has a Moodle area on e-safety (’Login as a Guest’) as does RSC East Midlands.
2. IT security: managing access in order to protect data, networks and equipment, rather than people (concerns such as computer virus transmission, bandwidth usage). Obviously this is the domain of the IT department and the rest of the college may not have any involvement at all here.
3. Management of student behaviour in a learning environment: in terms of making sure people are not disruptive to other learners, and are not using scarce resources (e.g. high-demand PCs) for social purposes at the expense of students who need them for educational purposes. This is the aspect I will look at in more detail below.

[Image by kilikilo]

Options for managing user behaviour

Last week I gave a talk to some library undergraduates at Aberystwyth University’s Department of Information Studies. The talk was about the FE and HE library sectors, as well as some current themes such as e-books, information literacy, library 2.0, access management, and resource discovery tools. As part of it I wanted to give them a brief example of a realistic scenario an LRC manager in FE might come across, in order to give context to the other things I had been saying (and to make sure that the students were still awake!) The scenario I set was as follows:

• Each person in your group is an LRC Manager for a different campus of Coleg Dysguda, but facing the same issue.
• In each LRC is a block of computers. However there are frequent complaints from students that can’t get on a PC to do work – because other students are using them for FaceBook or other social purposes.
• Firstly, decide if you want to do anything about this issue or not.
• If you do, what interventions could you propose to deal with this?
• Finally, the group can discuss as many ideas as you want, but you can only take ONE proposal to the senior management in the college. So you have to agree on what you will do, if anything.

I was impressed that the students came up with realistic options and managed to think of most of the ways an LRC might deal with this issue. I have included the options they thought up below, along with some others I think should be included. Many institutions could combine a number of these.

Block access to the web sites

Obviously some insitutions just ban access to these technologies outright, either for students and staff, or just students. Or ban access to individual sites like FaceBook. In the past this was more likely to be done in FE libraries than HE. But are we then missing out? It is worth considering these points:

• In some cases there may be legitimate uses for social software, sometimes tied to courses. For example the ‘Study on the Effective Use of Social Software by UK FE & HE to Support Student Learning & Engagement‘ found that “social software tools support a variety of ways of learning”.
• Increasingly institutions have entries on sites like FaceBook, so the institution has to be careful about seeming inconsistent if it then implements an outright ban on such websites. As an exemplar of what can usefully be done with social software, it is worth looking at Gloucester College. Their usage of FaceBook was highlighted in the BBC site last Autumn. Also the FaceBook in Education site has some examples of the positive use of FaceBook in education.
• Caroline Rhys of Deeside College pointed me to the new Ofsted report ‘The safe use of new technologies‘ (February 2010) giving recommendations for managing social software rather than locking it down.
• Blocking sites is certainly an easy option, but we need to be aware of what we may be losing in terms of the above, as well as an opportunity to educate students. In ‘Harnessing Technology, Safeguarding Further Education and Skills learners in a digital world‘, published by Becta, it says:

“Organisations are finding that a blocking and banning approach, which merely limits exposure to risk, is not sustainable. Organisations need to focus on a model of empowerment; equipping learners with the skills and knowledge they need to use technology safely and responsibly and managing the risks, whenever and wherever they go online; and to promote safe and responsible behaviours in using technology at college, in the workplace, in the home and beyond.”

• RSC London have summarised the issue in one of their blog posts.
• Can Social Networking help with retaining students? There is an Excellence Gateway case study “Warwickshire College: Social networking improves student retention“. Also see this BBC News article.

So, what other options are there?

Separate area or PCs for social use

There could be separate PCs that allow certain social uses (possibly placed in an area that can be monitored, but safely away from quiet study areas). Once these short stay PCs are established other areas could become ‘FaceBook-free’ zones for quiet study.

Get more PCs

The downsides of this option are that it depends on budgets, and it doesn’t prevent disruption and noise (unless combined with other solutions). Space is often an issue in LRCs and there may not be room for more desktop PCs, but this is where laptops available for loan to students can take the pressure off. This solution deals with the scarcity of PCs, and increases facilities for all students.

Booking system

Having a system whereby students can only use the PCs (or a selection of them) for limited times e.g. 1 hour slots. This answers the issue of scarcity to a degree, shares access more equally and prevents individuals from hogging PCs for social use. It doesn’t solve the issue of disruption though. These systems don’t need technology to work, but I will discuss automated booking systems as an option later.

Separate times or quotas for social use

Here the LRC would only allow social use at certain times (such as lunch times), but with restrictions in place during the rest of the day. As examples from Wales:

• In Coleg Morgannwg students are only allowed access to Facebook in the morning until 9am; then from 12pm to 1pm; and then again after 3pm [March 2010].
• In Swansea College social networking is allowed on a range of sites but on a one hour quota (whether the  one hour is spent on one site or a mix) [May 2010].
• Yale College allows limited use of Facebook (and other social networking sites) for four 5 minute slots per day, for both staff and students. Staff can request additional access for themselves or groups of students via their manager. [May 2010]

Acceptable Use Policies (AUP)

Simply having a clear Acceptable Use Policy can make a difference – letting the users know what they can and can’t do. At the most basic level it could just be a policy of priority so that students working on a PC get priority over those ’socialising/playing’. Whatever the content, there is a clear element of user education required in establishing any AUP.

As well as being an option in itself, an AUP would work best in conjunction with one or more of the other solutions mentioned here.

Developing an AUP is a good process to go through anyway, and as part of it the LRC could adopt a risk management approach, touching on issues of e-safety as well as behaviour management. As part of the development you would obviously need to consider how it will be enforced and monitored. Library patrollers? The duty of staff based near PC areas? Or the use of technology solutions? I will discuss some of those below.

For those considering an AUP there is some schools’ guidance here, which has some points relevant to FE. It is also a topic to discuss with other library managers, possibly sharing policies that have been developed. See also this discussion about library policies from LIS-WEB2 (here and here).

Ask the users

If there are no acceptable use policies in place at present it may be worth considering them, possibly preceded by a debate within the college involving students and staff. It would be useful for giving everyone a voice, and to make sure that nothing too draconian is applied. Survey them, have focus groups over coffee, find out what they think, decide what you could and would allow as a compromise. The advantage here is that they become stakeholders.

PC booking and monitoring systems

Software and technology solutions can be useful. There are systems that allow monitoring of what is being done on each PC, enabling remote enforcement of policies (many allow you to pop a message up on a user’s screen, and lock their access if required). There are also booking systems to share out usage, so that everyone gets a chance to use a PC. Most commercial systems combine these two functions. Some systems have other uses for directed teaching.

Note that having a system doesn’t necessarily mean monitoring students’ screens all the time – once students get used to a policy and realise that it is enforced they tend to be more aware of the LRC policies and realise that there is no point trying to circumvent them. So the systems can be a deterrent to abuse.

RSC Wales has some information on PC booking systems on our Information Area, and links to actual systems that can be used in our Delicious account.

Conclusion

There are many other management options, this list is not comprehensive. Some may work in one circumstance but not another. That is where raising it as an issue for discussion with other managers is the best option – only when you speak to people that have tried a particular approach can you find out what worked and what didn’t! There are no easy answers to this subject, but by sharing experiences we can get a better idea of what works best.