Introduction

institution ID
control FTE enrollment Carnegie Class state began embedding # sections/semester # staff involved time-consuming?

Results
institution 1
public +22K students masters colleges & universities Tennessee 2004 35 1 librarian, 5 others help part-time no

Discussion
institution 4
private +16K students masters colleges & universities New York 2008 (all classes) 1 librarian, 1 library technologist no

institution 2
public +50K students doctorate-granting Florida 2006 5 or less 6 librarians (at 4 campus branches) yes

institution 3
public +8K students associates colleges Arkansas 2006 18 1 librarian no

institution 5
public +3K students associates colleges Arizona 2007 27-37 2 librarians yes

institution 6
private, for-profit +22K students doctorate-granting Minnesota 2007 8 1 librarian no

Findings
prevalence of term embedded librarian difficulty defining the role of the embedded librarian prevalence of proactive email feeling busy not related to course load

Best Practices
develop the service with partners create automated library module email the faculty about service define embedded librarians role post in one library-specific discussion board discussion board alerts (RSS) save posts for future use check courses at set times plan ahead for assignment deadlines proactively post information at point-of-need

inside CMS
general discussion board institution 1 institution 2 X X assignment-related discussion board X X library-specific discussion board X X X X X X X X X
institution 1 institution 2 institution 3 institution 4 institution 5 institution 6

outside CMS
active email X X X X X passive email X X X X X X X intro message active email

passive email X X X X X

intro message X X X X X

Methods
Sample Characteristics
six participants (academic librarians) several different institutional types geographically dispersed

institution 3 institution 4 institution 5 institution 6

Directions for Future Research

purpose why were these services created? what are they designed to do best? efficacy is the service effective at that purpose? is there a discernable difference for students? motivation why do librarians decide to embed? expectations vs. realities after the initial service, did its purpose change? was the service continued or abandoned?

Data Gathering Methods

email discussions observation of participants library websites online survey phone interviews

often

institution 1 institution 2 institution 3 institution 4 institution 5 institution 6

institution 1 institution 2 institution 3 institution 4 institution 5 institution 6

occasionally never

in te te rna li rn nt al ro pr te oa rn ct al iv e re sp on ex se ex ter n te rn al in al tro ex pr te oa rn ct al iv e re sp on se g as ene si gn ral b m en oar d tlib spe ra ci fic ry -s pe ci fic in in
email activities discussion board posts

MTSU institution 1 institution 2 UCF institution Pulaski 3 institution 4 RIT institution Central AZ5 institution Capella 6