Award Number:                       RE-06-06-0018-06

Project Title:                             Government Information in the 21^st Century

                                                http://www.webjunction.org/gi21                                                          

Awardee Institution Name:        Regents of the University of Colorado

Partners:                                   Arizona State Library, Archives and Public Records

                                                New Mexico State Library

                                                University of Utah

                                                Wyoming State Library

Report Type:                            Final Performance Report

Period Covered:                       From: September 1, 2006   To: September 30, 2008

Principal Investigator:                Margaret (Peggy) Jobe, Head of Government Publications

University of Colorado at Boulder

Co-Principal Investigator:          Jennifer Gerke, Electronic Gov. Information Librarian

                                                University of Colorado at Boulder

Telephone:                                303-492-4682 or 303-492-8834

E-mail:                                      Margaret.Jobe@colorado.edu

Project Summary

The Government Information in the 21^st Century (Gi21) project, a continuing education program to train reference and public service librarians in Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming in the use of electronic government information, built on the knowledge of expert government information librarians, and capitalized on technology for training and sustainability.  The program achieved four goals:

1. Forty-seven government information professionals underwent training, developed online training components for 22 subject modules, and provided training to over 900 library professionals in the use of electronic government information,

2. Expanded the base of library professionals who have knowledge of and experience with electronic government information resources within the five states involved in the project,

3. Increased the level of satisfaction of trainees with government information resources in meeting the information needs of their specific user communities, and

4. Developed and demonstrated a new model for the support and training of participants in the Federal Depository Library Programin the 5-state region that can be adopted nationally.

Analysis of the Project

Development of Government Information Professionals:

The Government Information in the 21^st Century (Gi21) project developed a cadre of forty-seven  government information professionals from the five states of Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming (Attachment 1) to train and support non-government information professionals in their use of electronic government information. An online survey (Attachment 2) of federal depository librarians was conducted in November and December, 2006 to identify key content areas where the greatest need for training exists. The survey resulted in a ranked list of 21 subject modules (Attachment 3). Depository librarians with expertise in these content areas cooperated virtually to develop online training modules for the top ten subjects in Spring 2007 and for nine of the remaining subjects in Summer 2007. A two and one-half day Train-the-Trainer conference, held at the University of Colorado in Boulder, June 6-8, 2007 provided an opportunity to assess and increase the knowledge level of the depository librarians in the subject areas, gain a better understanding of the scope of the project, increase their comfort level with providing training sessions, and prepare training plans to meet the needs of non-government information professionals within each state. Educational opportunities at the conference included a presentation on Current Education Initiatives by Kathy Brazee from the U.S. Government Printing Office, a session on the Basics of Electronic Government Information by Jennie Gerke, Electronic Government Information Librarian at the University of Colorado and the Project Manager, Kirsten Clark, as well as teaching theory and strategies by Deborah Grealy, PhD in adult education from the University of Denver.  Joe Anderson, Content Manager for WebJunction, provided an overview of this online community of librarians and how it can be used to support the training efforts of the project.  The Conference Evaluation Summary (Attachment 4) revealed that 38 attendees (81%) came away with a better understanding of the project (9.03 on a scale of 1 to 10) and felt more comfortable using the information learned at the conference to perform their required two training sessions (8.37 on a scale of 1 to 10).  Pre- and Post-tests to assess the knowledge level of participants asked them to rank their level of comfort in using electronic government information sources as well as their level of knowledge on the top ten subjects selected for module development.  All 47 participants responded and a comparison of the tests (Attachment 5) shows a significant increase in knowledge in five subjects, a small increase in knowledge in two subjects (Environment and Legal Information) and a decrease in knowledge in five areas (Comfort using electronic government information, Demographics, and Teaching Adults, etc.).  The decrease in knowledge could be related to an individual’s prior level of knowledge, individual learning style, the skills of the presenters, or even a realization after training that one does not know as much about a subject as one first thought.  Overall, comments on the Train-the-Trainer Conference were quite favorable (Goal 1, Objective 1).

Trainer Participation in State-based Training Sessions:

According to the training plans developed at the Train-the-Trainer Conference (posted on the project website as well as the states’ document depository website) state coordinators surveyed their audiences for areas of interest and worked with the trainers in their state to develop workshops customized with content and method of delivery for their audiences (Goal 3, Objective 1).  Promotional materials including a tri-fold brochure, flyers, and PowerPoint slides were made available on the project website. Promotion of training events was customized by state coordinators and trainers to their audience and varied by event (Attachments 6 - Goal 3, Objective 2). Training sessions began on July 31, 2007 and continued through September 26, 2008.  The Training Schedule and Checklist (Attachment 7) details the 75 separate training events and the149 subject modules presented during the grant period.  Every effort was made to reach librarians from all areas of each state.           

As the red dots on training maps (Attachment 8) show, Utah and Wyoming chose to concentrate training sessions in larger cities at state and/or regional conferences.  Wyoming focused on Spring and Fall Wyoming Library Association (WYLA) workshops in Cheyenne and Casper, presenting two half-day sessions at each.  Creative titles like “Better than a Bandaid: Government Health Information in the 21^st Century” and “Growing Pains” (which tied in with the Governor’s initiative on “Building the Wyoming We Want”) attracted large audiences.  In addition, the Fremont County Public Library hosted a training session on Legal Information. In Utah, Weber State University in Ogden and Utah State University in Logan cooperated to host training sessions on Legal Information while sessions at the University of Utah focused on Demographics, Elections and Legal Information.  The major initiative in Utah, however, was focused on the joint Utah Library Association/Mountain Plains Library Association Conference in Salt Lake City where a half-day preconference “Government Information Toolkit” was followed by regular conference sessions on Citizenship & Immigration, Elections and Legal Information attended by librarians from all types of libraries and several states.

Arizona and New Mexico also took advantage of state association conferences to reach a large number of people, but also took training on the road to cities in the far reaches of their large states (Attachment 8).  Supported by their state libraries, training in these states was facilitated using online registration, strong avenues of communication, and creative initiatives on the part of the state coordinators.  Arizona took training to the tribal college libraries in Tsaille, Arizona and Shiprock, New Mexico on the same day, traveling over a mountain pass and back to reach their audiences.  They also hosted training sessions at the AzLA Conference in 2007, provided a series of sessions for the Maricopa County Library District and the City of Mesa Library, and traveled to Holbrook, Florence, Prescott, Clarkdale, Flagstaff, Yuma, Glendale and Scottsdale to provide training.  Arizona also pioneered the use of Live Classroom for virtual presentation of a session on Citizenship & Immigration to the entire state and, when the results were favorable, presented a series of virtual sessions to 57 library staff throughout Navajo County.  Even after the grant period ended, four Arizona government information specialists returned to their state conference in December, 2008 and were applauded for the quality of their program, “GI didn’t know that!”  Gi21 trainers from New Mexico held two statewide training sessions at the State Library in Santa Fe on the use of both federal and New Mexico state legal information resources.  Five sessions were presented at the New Mexico Library Association in Las Cruces on Consumer Information, Small Business, Demographics, Energy and History & Genealogy.  State trainers then hit the road to present day-long sessions in Las Vegas, Alamagordo, Socorro, Portales and back to Santa Fe on Consumer Information, Small Business, Demographics, Energy, History & Genealogy, Health & Medicine, Citizenship & Immigration, and Kids Stuff.

Colorado training started slow but snowballed as libraries learned of the program - in part from a partnership with the Colorado Library Consortium that took training sessions to their regional workshops in Greeley, Pueblo, and Grand Junction and met the needs of all types of librarians, including those that work at correctional facilities.  Public libraries in Boulder, Denver, Ignacio, Mancos, Cortez, Walsenberg, and Grand Junction hosted training sessions, as did academic libraries in Fort Collins, Golden, Grand Junction, Alamosa, and Glenwood Springs.  Law librarians were targeted at sessions held at the U.S. Courts in Denver and teacher-librarians were enthusiastic about training sessions in Lakewood, Fort Lupton, Platte Valley and the tiny town of Peetz on the border near Wyoming.  Yet we were disappointed that efforts to schedule events in Steamboat Springs in the northwest and in Lamar or La Junta in the southeast part of the state (noted by blue dots on map) never materialized. Gi21 had an unexpected opportunity to “go global” when 22 information professionals from the U.S. State Department, Information Resource Centers representing 21 countries visited Denver.  These professionals provide information about the United States to U.S. citizens abroad, foreign nationals interested in in the U.S. and to government employees.  Their skill sets and knowledge requirements are similar to that of federal documents librarians.  Chris Brown, Gi21 Planning Committee Member, Module Developer and Trainer, and University of Denver librarian, gave them an overview of the project, a brief introduction to the Gi21 website and invited their questions when they return to their home countries. (Goal 3, Objective 2)

Of the 47 trainers who attended the Train-the-Trainer Conference, 33 conducted at least two training sessions while seven conducted only one training session. Five of those who presented only one session moved out of the five-state area and one retired before they could complete a second session. Only six of the original trainers did not conduct any training sessions.  One of those six moved out of the area immediately following the Conference.  Tragically, another trainer was killed in an automobile accident, yet a colleague who did not attend the Conference stepped up to do her two training sessions.  While such life changes were not anticipated, the enthusiasm and efforts of dedicated trainers who conducted more than two training sessions (3 to 8 by some trainers and an astounding 12 by one) helped to reach 729 individual library workers, surpassing our goal of 500-600 librarians. (Goal 1, Objective 2)

Application and Development of Online Component:

As training progressed, slowly at first then ramping up in the spring of 2008, trainers contributed electronic copies of their handouts, PowerPoint slides, and training exercises which were posted on the WebJunction site in the appropriate subject module.  These training resources could then be used by trainees to practice what they had learned as well as by other trainers for their training sessions.  In addition, it became evident that an additional subject module, “Introduction to Electronic Government Information,” was needed for trainees that had little or no knowledge of government information and how it is produced, published and distributed.  So, this module was created and added to the other subject modules on the Gi21 WebJunction website along with customized training resources and exercises. (Goal 3, Objective 3)

Statistical reports from WebJunction were provided from March 2007 through September 2008 (Attachments 9). However some of the statistics cover a shorter time span due to a system migration in the summer of 2008 after which certain statistics “have not yet [been] implemented the same way of measuring site activity on the new platform that [WebJunction] used on the old platform.”  Despite this hiccup, the Gi21 team created an impressive 135 Navigation items and 871 Content items through May of 2008.  WebJunction reported that the total number of page views (both navigation and content) through July 31, 2008 was 1,459,623.  The number of ffiliated members (those WebJunction users who associated themselves with Gi21) was 281 at the end of July, but rose to 410 after the launch of the platform in August (Attachment 10).

An analysis (Attachment 11) of the number of training sessions on a subject and the number of page views on that subject module compared to the original survey of subjects needed provides some interesting data.  As intended, a large number of training sessions were conducted on the top three subjects identified in the survey yet the navigation items for these three subjects did not receive the largest number of web page views.  A moderate number of sessions were conducted for five out of the next six subjects identified in the survey yet these are the ones with the highest number of web page views.  Training for the Kids Stuff module, which was one of the last to be developed since it was ranked last on the original survey, was conducted 15 times and this subject had the second highest number of web page views (second only to Citizenship and Immigration which was ranked fifth in the original survey).

Training Session Attendance:

Counting participants became in interesting task.  If one subject module was presented at a single training session, the task was easy.  However, longer training events covering multiple subject sessions could be attended by different participants as well as by some of the same participants, bringing up the question of whether participants should be counted multiple times for attending different subject presentations at the same event.  Additionally, some participants attended a training event and found it so helpful that they made the effort to attend another event.   The Project Manager decided that it was necessary to count attendance in a variety of ways which is reflected in “Attendance at Training Sessions” (Attachment 12).  Whether you count attendance by event (938), by subject module (1,126) or by unique individuals (729) we exceeded our goal by more than 21% (Goal 2, Objective 1).

Demographic data from the pre- and post-tests revealed the following information:

A comparison of 2000 Census occupational statistics by ethnicity to the Gi21 attendance indicates that we were fairly successful in reaching Native American, Multiple race and Pacific Islander library staff, while only somewhat successful in reaching Hispanic or Asian library staff.  However, the statistics may be skewed by the large number of people (245) who did not respond to this question:

Assessment and Evaluation of Training:

Of course, attendance alone does not tell the entire story and that’s where the data comes in.  Attendees were asked to complete a pre-test prior to training, a post-test following the training and a 6-month post-training survey to assess their comfort in using electronic government information and their knowledge of electronic government information in 22 subject areas  (Attachments 13, 14, 15).  All surveys were vetted by the Human Research Committee, Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research, University of Colorado at Boulder for protocol that protects the privacy of human research subjects.  Some trainers provided the pre- and post-test forms in print at the training sessions while others emailed attendees prior to and following the training with a link to complete the forms online.  Email messages were sent out six months following each training session (for those sessions conducted prior to August 2008) with a link to a follow-up survey.  As anticipated, not all attendees completed all forms.  After cleaning the data, it was determined that there were 461 valid pairs for the question relating to comfort using electronic government information, 737 valid pairs of pre- and post-tests on subject knowledge, and 284 valid 6-month post-training surveys.  Results of these surveys were compiled by the Computing and Research Services office of the Institute for Behavioral Studies at the University of Colorado in Boulder using standard statistical analysis strategies and SPSS software.

Attendees were first asked, “What is your overall comfort level with using electronic government information?” Analysis of the pre- and post-tests on this question found 461 valid pairs which is only 62% of the respondents and less than 50% of the total number of participants. Anecdotally, we also noticed on print tests that some people neglected to answer this question, but ranked some or all of the subjects for knowledge level.  In hindsight we believe that the design of the survey form may have contributed to this finding. So, we were unable to achieve the measurement of “90% of attendees will report an increased comfort level in using electronic government information” specified in Goal 2.  However, comparison of the pre-test rank with the post-test rank and using only participants’ first training session pre-test showed an increase in comfort of 29.33%.

Further, an analysis of this question including pre-tests for participants who attended additional training sessions (402 valid pairings) indicates that prior to a second training session participants started with a higher level of comfort (2.97) than before their first training session (2.83) yet also showed a significant gain in comfort using electronic government information:

For Goal 2, we also had predicted that 75% of the attendees will demonstrate an improvement in their knowledge of government information following the conclusion of a workshop.  This measure is also a bit difficult to demonstrate since participants attended training sessions on different subjects, yet responded on the pre- and post-tests to rank knowledge in each and every subject.  If counted separately for each subject module attended there were 1,126 attendees yet there were 737 valid pairings on the pre- and post-tests for all subjects. So overall there was only a 65% response rate.  In order to accurately gauge knowledge gain, it was necessary to look at each subject separately and weight the responses of those who attended training by subjects.  The full data analysis is over fifty pages, but a summary of the findings demonstrates that knowledge gain by subject varies from only 7% on one subject to 91 % on another and that here was an overall knowledge gain of 45% (Attachment 16).

Satisfaction with Electronic Government Information in Meeting Needs of Customers:

The 6-month post-training survey was designed to meet the measurement in Goal 2 of whether 50% of attendees would report continued use of electronic government information 6 months after their training.  Since training continued to nearly the end of the grant (September 26, 2008 was the last training session) we were only able to request surveys from participants who attended training prior to August 2008. This fact, along with expired email addresses, significantly reduced the number of respondents to the survey. We were able to validate only 191 surveys but gleaned a great deal of information for Goal 3 from these responses.

We were pleased to see that six months after training the majority of participants continued to report a higher level of comfort in using electronic government resources (Attachment 17, Table 1). The mean comfort level score after six months of 3.58 as compared to the mean score on pre-tests of 2.83 shows an overall gain of 30.04%, slightly greater than the 29% gain between pre-test and immediate post-test. When asked if they continue to use the information they learned to assist their customers, nearly 88% responded that they do “sometimes” or “frequently” while only 10.5% responded “never” (Attachment 17, Table 2). Of those that responded “never” several commented that they “don’t get questions [from customers] pertaining to government information” or that “there is no real demand for government information” in their communities. A few who responded “never” commented that the training session they attended was not particularly helpful, that they still are not aware of all the government sites available, or that they just don’t have “the necessary time to work in this area.” When asked if they had shared what they had learned with other colleagues at their library, the majority of respondents (81%) responded in the affirmative (Attachment 17, Table 3). However, when asked if they used WebJunction modules for training other colleagues or serving customers, the majority (68.5%) responded “never.” Only 26% responded “sometimes” and only 6 people responded “frequently” which was very disappointing (Attachment 17, Table 4). Yet, when asked if they would benefit from additional training on other subject modules from GI21 over 75% indicated that they would, but many didn’t know what subject area they needed (Attachment 17, Table 5).

Analysis of subject knowledge after 6-months in comparison to pre-tests revealed a continued improvement in knowledge (37.34% on average) and we can only hope that library staff were using the online component and continuing to practice what they had learned. (Attachment 18).

In addition to the pre- and post-tests, attendees were asked to complete a session evaluation to assess their satisfaction with the training session (Attachment 19).  661 evaluations were received from 79 training sessions that indicated (on a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 being the highest) an average of 8.04 better understanding of electronic government information as a result of the workshop and an average of 7.89 confidence level in using the information learned to meet the needs of customers at their own institution.  This represents over 70% of attendees, just shy of our target measurement for Goal 3 of 75%.  However, the rankings are much better than average and represent a significant level of satisfaction with the training sessions. A look at the average rating for each individual training session also gives some insight into the performance of individual trainers.  For example, ratings for sessions on Citizenship & Immigration alone range from 5.00 to 8.86 on a better understanding of electronic government information and from 7.00 to 8.43 on confidence using the information to help their customers.

Augmenting the two quantitative questions were five open questions regarding the part of the workshop enjoyed the most, the aspects that were most useful, whether there was anything that could have been done differently, how well the trainer addressed the topic(s), and if the session met expectations. Analysis and compilation of these responses is difficult but there certainly are some trends in the responses.  The part of training sessions that people enjoyed the most (besides individual resources) was definitely the opportunity for hands-on exploration and practice, followed closely by resource exercises, quizzes and interactive learning.  The most useful aspects of the training sessions were “the websites” which was expressed in several different ways.  Many attendees appreciated knowing one URL to which they could go for access to electronic government information on all subjects, while others found the organization of the Gi21 WebJunction site by subject to be most useful.  Still others found the government sites themselves (with valid information) most useful and, even though the main Gi21 site links to all of the above, many participants found print handouts with URLs and descriptions most useful.  As to what could have been done differently, the answers were either “nothing” or they were “more, more, more.”  To be more specific, participants were either pleased with the training session as it was or they wanted more time for the presentation, more time for individual exploration, more instruction on how to navigate particular sites, more training sessions, more in-depth training on a subject or training on more subjects.  Evaluations of how well the trainer addressed the topic were overwhelmingly “very well” with some “excellent,” “great,” and good.  Participants also commented that they liked when the presenter interjected humor into the presentation as well.  As to meeting expectations, the majority of responses were “yes” “exceeded” or “more than.” (Goal 3, Objectives 1, 2, 3)

Assessment and Evaluation of the Project

Our final goal (Goal 4) was to demonstrate that this new model for the support and training of participants of the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP) in our 5-state region is sustainable and can be adopted nationally.  While all of the above narrative and data appears to confirm this, we chose to assess the project further in several ways.

First, we developed an online survey using Zoomerang software to poll the trainers about their training experience, including the number of sessions they conducted, how they identified and/or scheduled sessions, what length of session(s) they conducted as well as how the sessions were presented, and what impact the training had on trainees (Attachment 20).  Administered in July 2008, the survey gleaned 34 complete responses. The trainers (and many of them module developers as well) overwhelmingly agreed (86%) that their own comfort level as well as their knowledge of electronic government information had increased as a result of their participation in the project (Questions 20 and 21).  When asked if new communities or populations of library workers had been reached through Gi21 training, the responses were also impressive (Attachment 20, Question 18).  As to whether the project had increased communication between depository librarians and non-depository librarians, the results were nearly evenly split (Attachment 20, Question 19).  Most trainers responded that the number of questions from non-depository libraries had not increased (92%) and that the types of questions had not changed (92%); however, we have anecdotal evidence that some trainers established themselves as experts and had follow-up questions from training participants (Attachments 21).  Finally, all 34 respondents (100%) to the survey responded “yes” when asked if they had achieved the goals of their state training plan as well as the goals identified in the IMLS grant.

We then took advantage of a surplus of funds for student participation, requested a budget revision, and organized a Trainer Evaluation Conference held at the University of Colorado in Boulder on August 12, 2008 (Attachment 22). Nineteen trainers and state coordinators participated in discussion of training data, results of the Trainer Survey and, most importantly, conducted a SWOT analysis of the project and formulated Best Practices for Training, Module Development, and Marketing (Attachments 23 & 24) based on their experiences.  These two documents reveal the passion, insight and growth of the GI21 team members as well as lay out a blueprint for the sustainability of the Government Information in the 21^st Century project.  While we believed that our model could be replicated anywhere there were passionate government information specialists, some of the threats identified in the SWOT Analysis, specifically funding, could easily overpower passion and that, for the moment, seems to have come to pass (Goal 4).

The Future of Government Information in the 21^st Century

It was our plan at the beginning of the GI21 project that the model we created for depository librarians training non-depository librarians would thrive in the future.  It was also our plan that the online component on WebJunction would live on. We truly believed that both of these dreams would come to fruition – and we still do. Despite the fact that Project Managers and Principal Investigators changed mid-program and that a subaward agreement could not be reached with one state, the project continued to be successful.  Trainers and trainees were enthusiastic about the program. Presentations to the FDLP community at large at four national conferences garnered a great deal of interest and commitment on the part of several regional librarians in other geographic areas.  Kirsten Clark, former Project Manager of the Gi21 project and current Head of Government Publications at the University of Minnesota was committed to leading groups of government information librarians to experiment with the model we created using a variety of specialized content, organized in several different ways with various partners, and targeting a number of special populations of librarians.  The key to such a venture is, as always seems the case, funding for the project and the participants. The Government Printing Office has applauded the efforts of the Gi21 participants and always expressed an interest in supporting the project, so we will continue to explore partnerships and funding opportunities with GPO. WebJunction, which has been a loyal partner in this process, has agreed to maintain the Gi21 website through the end of December 2008 but we have no assurance beyond that point unless a current partner with WebJunction takes on this task (which MINITEX has said they would be willing to do).  The University of Minnesota had committed support for seeking additional grant funding for this endeavor and we all looked forward to a continuation of our efforts.  Yet just this week we have learned that several large scale projects have been given higher priority than the grant by library administration at the University of Minnesota at this time. Compounding that is the general economic climate which has impacted state budgets for the next couple of years.  Regional librarians that had committed to the project now find themselves facing limited support from their institutions and are not willing to commit to a long-term project that involves a major commitment of cost share involving individuals who are already overburdened.  Yet, the results of the Gi21 project are so compelling that it is the intent of the participants, who invested so much in the project, to move forward at a more appropriate time. To this end, the University of Minnesota is working with WebJunction to keep the Gi21 website in place until a new grant can be funded, including expansion of the discussion communities within the site.

Budget and Cost Share

To date, all expenses have been paid.  There will be approximately $12,000.00 of IMLS not invoiced for this project primarily from unspent funds for Student Stipends.  We learned as training progressed that many attendees could not apply for stipends based on their state, local or library policies or felt that they ethically could not accept a stipend if their institution was funding the training or their hours.  Throughout the program only 1/3 of trainees applied for the stipends. A total of 371 fifty-dollar stipends were paid totaling $18,550.00.  (When a University of Arizona library school student approached the State Library looking for a project for her Ethics class, she learned of the dilemma surrounding our stipends and chose to use this as her project which was vigorously discussed online by members of her class.)

Third Party (Partner) Cost Share for the project has far exceeded the anticipated hours and monetary value totaling over $125,725.00 (Attachments 25 & 26) and speaks to the huge commitment of time and resources on the part of the project’s module developers and trainers. The Cost Share Contribution from the University of Colorado has not been calculated at the time of this writing, but should be close to what was projected based on the percent of hours allocated for each grant participant. Regarding funding for the position of Project Manager in hindsight it really is not feasible to allocate funds for only two years of work for a Project Manager when (1) analyzing results of a 6-month follow-up test is part of the program and (2) data analysis, financial transactions and report-writing continue after the end of the grant period.  Second, it is the opinion of many involved in the Gi21 program, that a grant project of this size really requires a full-time Project Manager.  Finally, it was our good fortune to receive an IMLS grant for this project and we are proud to have been associated with Government Information in the 21^st Century.

Notes:

²Academic Library Outreach: Beyond Library Walls.  Nancy Courtney, ed. Libraries Unlimited, 2008.  Ch. 19 “Government Information in the 21^st Century: A New Model for Academic Outreach” (Attachment 27)

³Article on cooperative subject module development using wikis, in progress.

¹A CD archive of Gi21 files from WebJunction has been requested but not yet received.