Sustainable Decision Making for Emerging Educational Technologies in Libraries
Richard Hayman & Erika E Smith

This is a post-print (revised and peer-reviewed) version of the published manuscript:
Hayman, R., & Smith, E. E. (2015). Sustainable decision making for emerging educational
technologies in libraries. Reference Services Review, 43(1), 7-18.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/RSR-08-2014-0037

1

Abstract

Purpose – To discuss approaches to sustainable decision making for integrating emerging
educational technologies in library instruction while supporting evidence based practice.

Design/methodology/approach – The article highlights recent trends in emerging educational
technologies and evidence based practice, and details a model for supporting evidence informed
decision-making. This viewpoint article draws on an analysis of recent literature, as well as
experience from professional practice.

Findings – Authors discuss the need for sustainable decision making that addresses a perceived
lack of evidence surrounding emerging technologies, a dilemma that many library educators and
practitioner-researchers will have faced in their own library instruction. To support evidence
informed selection and integration of emerging educational technologies, a two-pronged model is
presented, beginning with an articulation of pedagogical aims, alignment of technological
affordances to these aims, and support of this alignment via hard evidence available in the
research literature as well as soft evidence found in the environmental scan.

Originality/value – The article provides an outline and synthesis of key issues of relevance to
library practitioners working within a challenging and ever-changing landscape of technologies
available for learning and instruction. The proposed approach aims to create a sustainable model
for addressing problems of evidence and will benefit academic librarians considering emerging

2

educational technologies in their own pedagogy, as well as those who support the pedagogy of
others.

3

Introduction
With the expanding range of emerging educational technologies that could be introduced to
library-supported instruction, making evidence-based decisions for selecting such tools for
instructional purposes is a critical yet challenging task. Librarians involved with instruction,
whether through their own teaching or when supporting the pedagogy of others, must make
evidence-informed decisions about using particular emerging educational technologies.
However, such decisions are often complicated by a problem of evidence—due to their newness,
there is often a perceived lack of available “up-to-the-minute” research about the pedagogical
impact of such new technologies. Engaging with themes of sustainability in changing academic
environments, and discussing the balance between planning and innovation, the goal of this
article is to identify the problem of evidence and propose an evidence-based decision-making
model for selecting and integrating emerging educational technologies in practice. Based upon a
literature review and lessons learned from practice, the authors propose a strategy that supports
evidence based practice when deciding whether or not to use emerging educational technologies
in library instruction.

Emerging Technologies and Trends

Defining Emerging Technologies
A significant amount of research examines the implementation of well-established technologies
for library instruction. However, little research addresses the decision-making process around
selecting emerging educational technologies in libraries. Indeed, the very concept of “emerging
technologies” can be difficult to define. Although information technology and education issues

4

are frequently the focus for library professionals, ideas of emerging technologies more broadly
include transformative and revolutionary developments projected to have impacts in areas as
diverse as biotechnology, nanotechnology, and stem cell research (Einsiedel, 2009). As
technologies still under development and therefore not yet mainstream, emerging technologies
are innovations addressing a user need. Einsiedel (2009) argues that emerging technologies are
viewed as inherently bringing strategic value, often in aspirational ways, and as such are futurelooking.

Emerging Educational Technologies
To focus our discussion on issues of importance for library instruction, the authors use the
definition articulated by Veletsianos (2010), who characterizes emerging educational
technologies as the “tools, concepts, innovations, and advancements utilized in diverse
educational settings…evolving organisms that experience hype cycles…not yet fully understood,
and not yet fully researched” (pp. 3-4). Such technologies are also often projected to have
revolutionary or transformative impacts for education. A popular source outlining trends in
education is the New Media Consortium’s annual Horizon Report, which presents key emerging
technologies that will impact higher education on a five-year scale. For example, the 2014 report
identifies tablet computing, games and gamification, and wearable technologies as just a few of
the emerging technology trends impacting teaching and learning (Johnson et al., 2014a).
Educators, practitioners, and researchers must be willing to consider whether our own libraries
and institutions can and should support these trending technologies. Indeed, this is an important
consideration for anyone using educational technologies.

5

Trends affecting emerging technologies are often discussed in the context of libraries
specifically, including those issues outlined in the NMC Horizon Report: 2014 Library Edition.
The most recent edition discusses several trends and related challenges, such as increased mobile
content delivery, electronic publishing, and open resources, identifying notable technological
developments forecasted to be important evolutions for libraries over the coming five years
(Johnson et al., 2014b). Within academic library settings, the importance of emerging
technologies can also be witnessed in discussions regarding the creation of new librarian roles to
meet these needs, such as a dedicated emerging technologies librarian. Through her study of this
new library position, Radniecki (2013) outlines both the benefits and challenges of emerging
technologies in libraries:

Libraries can leverage these emerging technologies in providing new resources and
services that meet their patrons’ point-of-need location, device preferences, and
information seeking behaviors. New technologies can also make libraries more efficient
in utilizing financial, staffing, and space resources. These new technologies also create
additional demands upon busy library staffs. (p. 2)

Whether one’s job title is emerging technology librarian, user experience librarian, or
instructional design librarian, those supporting educational technologies in libraries know firsthand that these tools present unique opportunities as well as challenges. How librarians make
decisions that can enable opportunities or mitigate challenges remains an issue needing further
exploration.

6

Trends and Hype Cycles
The rise of massively open online courses (MOOCs) is another trend identified in the Horizon
Report, with widespread discussion of this trend occurring in academia and the popular media.
MOOCs represent an excellent example of an emerging educational technology exemplifying the
hype cycles surrounding these tools. MOOCs have been presented as everything from
revolutionary and game changing (Leckart, 2012), and “tool[s] for democratizing higher
education” (Lewin, 2012), to a phenomenon that is over-hyped and problematic (Schuman,
2013). Maguire’s (2014) recent commentary examines in detail how MOOCs exemplify hype
cycles (specifically, Gartner’s hype cycle model), asking those within higher education to
consider the numerous factors that drive hype, such as pressure from government, consultants,
leaders, or the media.

Whether MOOCs represent a revolutionary, disruptive technology that alters the very core of
academia is a key debate occurring across higher education (Kolowich, 2013). Specific to
academic libraries, Wu (2013) endorses MOOCs as change agents, especially with regard to
open access and other open educational resources, before adopting a measured voice when
noting it is likely that the library role regarding MOOCs will be one of support, wherein libraries
“collaborat[e] with stakeholders on all levels” (p. 585). Barnes (2014) recognizes that MOOCs
represent multiple opportunities for promoting online library content, online library instruction,
and embedded librarianship, but again these reflect existing support roles that are hardly
revolutionary. What is missing from these discussions is a fulsome analysis of the pedagogical
impact MOOCs have for library instruction specifically and for academic libraries in general. For
example, how might MOOCs present opportunities or challenges for the library and its

7

instructional philosophies, aims, and outcomes? To get beyond the hype, we must find, evaluate,
and present clear evidence that supports libraries in their decisions to adopt, or disregard, such
emerging educational technologies. This example represents just one of many emerging
educational technology conundrums at the core of our call to examine decision-making processes
and problems of evidence for library instruction.

Convergence
Another key trend connected to emerging technologies is the idea of convergence, the notion that
many of the technologies we use will not only emerge and evolve, but also synergize in unifying
ways (Kaldis, 2010). In this way, convergence occurs by building upon and integrating the
qualities of previously separate technologies. Google Apps, a popular suite of web-based
technologies familiar to many educators and librarians, offers an example of convergence. The
Google suite combines email service with previously discrete enhancements and features, such
as calendars and talk (combining voice over IP and chat), further enriched through features such
as online storage and cloud software. Through Google Drive, users have multiple options for
electronic storage, document creation, collaboration and sharing, and dissemination, while
Google Sites provides simple, streamlined personal website or e-portfolio. All of these become
accessible through a single platform. There is a convergence of features, functions, and
characteristics unified in one place.

Other examples of convergence can be witnessed in the increasing prominence of a single access
point bringing together separate third-party technologies. Within academic libraries, an example
of a convergent emerging educational technology can be seen in the evolution and integration of

8

so-called “next-generation” discovery tools. Previously discrete library catalogues have been
merged with databases and search indices to form discovery layers, and in many cases these are
now treated as the primary search interface for library content. Yet in what is perhaps an
acknowledgement of the emerging status of discovery layers, many libraries continue to maintain
access to those discrete interfaces alongside their discovery layer, so that users still have the
option to search via the original stand-alone technology as well as via the convergent one.

Examining the Problem of Evidence

Library Practitioners and EBP
Decision-making processes go hand in hand with evidence based practice (EBP), especially in
academic settings. Naturally, there are different approaches to EBP within different professional
and disciplinary contexts. Yet EBP is itself a broad reaching, interdisciplinary, and
interprofessional concept spanning many professions and disciplines (Smith & Hayman, in
press). EBP is quickly gaining mainstream acceptance in librarianship in particular. However,
similar to professionalized fields such as education, many within library and information science
(LIS) experience tensions between being a researcher and a practitioner (Booth, 2003), and there
is a pressing need to bridge this research-practice gap.

Recent discussions of EBP in LIS have taken a variety of forms, and the value and impact EBP
has for practitioners involved in decision making is widely recognized. As a case in point, while
researching required skills for librarians working frequently in digital environments, Partridge,
Lee, and Munro (2010) found “[g]athering evidence to demonstrate feasibility, and undertaking

9

continual evaluation and assessment of resources and services being introduced…” (p. 327) to be
a vital skill for librarians. Such studies underscore the ability to integrate research and practice as
essential for all academic librarians, regardless of specialty. Affirming this point, Eldredge’s
(2014) review establishes the value of EBP as a “social movement among library and
information practitioners… [that] serves multiple purposes, among them principally providing a
process for informed decision making” (p. 63). Further reinforcing the relationship between
evidence and decision making, Koufogiannakis (2014) identifies five factors that enable or
inhibit the use of EBP processes among academic librarians, arguing that such factors “have a
direct influence on whether evidence will be incorporated into decision making within
professional practice” (p. 2). For practitioners struggling to balance planning and innovation
when dealing with emerging educational technologies, connecting EBP with decision making is
both an important and timely activity.

Decision makers often find themselves qualifying what counts as evidence. Within LIS, formal
evidence typically includes comprehensive research using some kind of qualitative, quantitative,
or mixed-methods approach (Centre for Evidence Based Library & Information Practice, 2014).
Numerous thinkers discuss whether certain types of research should be more heavily considered,
and those seeking additional background on this debate should consult Eldredge’s (2004)
treatment of the evidence base. Participants in Koufogiannakis’ (2012) study of Canadian
academic librarians identified their use of two primary types of evidence, hard versus soft, for
decision making in their own professional settings. Hard evidence is characterized here by rigour
and is scientific in nature, deemed as ‘formal’ research evidence by most academics. Hard
evidence that can inform decision making typically includes published literature, statistics, the

10

results of local research and evaluation, other documentation (such as policies and procedures),
and established factual information. Alternatively, soft evidence is typically seen as less rigorous
and tends to “focus on experience and accumulated knowledge, opinion, instinct, and what other
libraries or librarians do” (Koufogiannakis, 2012, p. 11). Soft evidence sources include input
from colleagues, tacit knowledge, user feedback, and anecdotal evidence. Hard and soft evidence
categories provide a useful frame for problems of evidence regarding emerging educational
technologies, a point which we further illustrate in our decision-making model, below.

The best available evidence should inform evidence-based decisions. Practitioners and
researchers tend to prioritize hard evidence, dismissing practice-focused soft evidence in the
process. Illustrating this issue, Koufogiannakis (2012) found that both hard and soft evidence are
used and valued by academic librarians involved in evidence-based decision making, though
only sources falling into the hard evidence category “were truly thought of as evidence” (p. 17).
In this sense, formal, rigorous evidence may be viewed as the best evidence when it comes to
decision making in practice. However, with regards to emerging technologies, this type of
evidence may be limited or unavailable. Where hard evidence is not readily available, how can
practitioners employ evidence informed decision making in practice? This is the problem of
evidence in regards to emerging educational technologies in library instruction to which we now
turn.

The Problem of Evidence
Reports forecasting emerging technology trends are often accompanied by popular media
sources discussing trending features and functions. However, due to their emerging status, at

11

times very little hard evidence exists regarding the use of a particular emerging tool in practice.
Emerging educational technologies are seen as so new that there is a common assumption for
there to be few, if any, up-to-date research investigations on their implementation in the
classroom. Early sources rarely report hard evidence measuring impacts on teaching and learning
processes, noting that there was not yet time for this research to be completed. This is the root of
the problem of evidence for emerging technologies. If there is a lack of formal evidence around
the use, value, and impact of the technology in question, is it even possible to make evidencebased decisions about whether, and how, to adopt said technology into one’s own pedagogy?

Practitioner-researchers often face this question when teaching or when consulting with faculty:
Should I adopt an emerging technology right away, despite the lack of hard evidence? Or,
should I wait until formal research evidence has properly measured this technology’s impact?
Many of us have witnessed “innovators” and “early adopters” (see Sahin, 2006) quickly
embracing a new technology, some of whom express dismay that they are not making evidence
informed decisions about the most impactful ways to integrate the selected technology within
their teaching. Conversely, many have witnessed practitioners who choose to delay the adoption
of an emerging technology express concern that they may be missing a key opportunity, or that
their practice will become out-dated. Far too often the problem is posed as an either/or
dichotomy—either be an innovator who risks ignoring EBP, or become out-dated awaiting
evidence to inform practice. In approaching the dilemma with this binary either/or mindset, there
is no easy path forward.

12

The authors argue that when presented in this way, the problem takes the form of a false
dichotomy. Instead, such questions can be rephrased in ways that ask: What evidence can I find
about whether a particular technology can be used to meet my instructional goals? Rephrasing
the problem in this manner serves two purposes. First, it eliminates the false dichotomy and
instead forces us to face the problem of evidence as an information seeking activity with
discoverable, though not necessarily definitive, results. Second, it encourages practical and
sustainable decision-making processes that (re)focus on the reasons and rationale for employing
the emerging educational technology under consideration, while instilling and promoting critical
analysis useful for facing future emerging technologies and trends.

Evidence Informed Decision Making for Technologies in Library Instruction
Given the issues outlined above, how can librarians make informed decisions about whether to
integrate particular emerging educational technologies in their instruction? While there are a
many possible approaches to this dilemma, the authors offer here one decision-making model
that can help to address such issues within library instruction contexts via a two-pronged
approach: firstly, by identifying instructional aims and technological affordances; and secondly,
by employing an information-seeking environmental scan. Within this decision-making model,
identifying aims and affordances is the primary phase, which then informs the direction of the
environmental scan in the second phase. However, these phases are not necessarily linear in
nature. Instead, each phase should reflect the other, so that the decision-making process becomes
an iterative assessment of aims, affordances, and information gathering that happens in parallel,
rather than via a linear sequence of steps.

13

Emerging Technologies in Library Instruction: A Decision-Making Model

Articulating Instructional Goals and Learning Outcomes
The importance of articulating the educational aims and outcomes of library instruction in ways
that guide our practice, enabling thoughtful selection of emerging educational technologies to
meet pedagogical purposes, is a point well worth reflecting upon for the first component of the
proposed decision-making model. In a recent longitudinal study of Canadian academic libraries,
Julien, Tan, and Merillat (2013) conclude that a key challenge for library instruction remains the
alignment of instructional practices with current approaches, particularly the “absence of
articulated instructional objectives and formal evaluation and assessment measures” (p. 100),
which they warn undermines confidence in information literacy instruction outcomes.
Articulating clear instructional objectives that inform educational practices and guide decisions
on whether to employ emerging educational technologies for pedagogical ends is a
straightforward process that librarians can undertake to build confidence in their overall
information literacy instruction.

When articulating and aligning to pedagogical goals and aims through instructional objectives
and learning outcomes, academic librarians have several resources to which they can turn. The
Association of College & Research Libraries (ACRL) provides a synopsis of overarching aims
and philosophies of undergraduate information literacy programs in their metaset of elements, as
noted in the recently updated Characteristics of Programs of Information Literacy that Illustrate
Best Practices: A Guideline (2012). More specifically, ACRL’s Information Literacy
Competency Standards for Higher Education (2014), as well as their list of Objectives for

14

Information Literacy Instruction (2001), provide frameworks for faculty and librarians to use in
instruction and assessing student learning. Of course, many other resources exist, including those
within local institutional contexts (e.g., centers for teaching and learning) and in the form of
strategic or academic plans.

Aligning Pedagogical Aims with Technological Affordances
Continuing with the first part of the decision-making process, once instructional objectives are
identified, one can assess whether there is a complimentary connection between the affordances
of the technology in question and the desired learning outcomes. An affordance is the
characteristic that allows one to carry out possible actions via an object or within an
environment. Willcockson and Phelps (2010) define an affordance as “the way a technology or
software can be used and what it allows the user to do or not to do” (para. 9), and provide several
helpful recommendations for solidifying the connection between technological affordances and
learning outcomes, connecting emerging technologies to educational practice. One
recommendation is to conduct affordance-learning goal matching, such as designing student
blogging assignments for reflective learning via journaling, or selecting a wiki so students can
collaborate on content creation (Willcockson & Phelps, 2010, para. 10).

To further mitigate the problem of evidence concerning emerging educational technologies, the
authors recommend conducting an evidence search for implementations of comparable
pedagogical aims achieved with similar technologies and affordances, especially searching
existing research connecting pedagogical goals with technological affordances in comparable
instructional situations. The very definitions of emergence and convergence underscore how

15

these technologies evolve to reflect and integrate well-known and established affordances.
Identifying the overarching instructional aims at play, along with the potential (inter)actions
afforded by a particular educational technology, can inform an evidence search that incorporates
hard evidence from peer-reviewed publications and empirical observation of established
functions.

Regardless of the particular technological trend or hype cycle encountered, there is a wealth of
hard evidence that can be integrated into practice. Rigorous research on educational technology
and instructional design can be leveraged after identifying how the technological affordances
align with pedagogical aims. Practitioners seeking to build an evidence base can search for
recent implementation of similar affordances or features of comparable educational technologies,
thereby employing established scholarship in fields such as instructional design, and avoiding a
focus on the one specific new technology in isolation. For example, an educator interested in
using a student response system (electronic polling) via a ‘bring your own device’ (BYOD)
approach can consult the wide array of existing research on similar features and outcomes from
educational use of proprietary devices, such as i>Clickers, or polling software used within
learning management systems. Rather than lamenting the lack of evidence for a particular “new”
emerging educational technology, by incorporating hard evidence that addresses aims and
affordances, we can foster a sustainable approach for making informed, evidence-based
decisions with the ultimate goal of improving practice.

Employing an Information-Seeking Environmental Scan
Informing the second part of the decision-making model, environmental scanning is an activity

16

familiar to library and information professionals, and many organizations conduct environmental
scanning in strategic, future-looking planning processes (Chrusciel, 2011; Grummon, 2012).
Environmental scanning involves acquiring, evaluating, and utilizing information from a variety
of sources, which can then be adapted and applied within individual or organizational contexts.
This information behavior is common across various kinds of LIS work, and can be particularly
useful when considering adopting an emerging educational technology. The most common
starting place for an environmental scan is public Internet websites, initiated by a simple
keyword search via a search engine. Websites, blog postings, news and media stories, and other
grey literature and reports serve as possible sources of soft evidence on a particular emerging
technology. It is important to remember that such scanning requires critical evaluation and
significant weeding, especially since these informal sources typically lack peer review or the
indexing and abstracting information of formal evidence sources.

In this information gathering process, the scanner seeks sources that can be applied to their
context and situation. This is quite distinct from the search for affordances because the types of
resources discovered will largely include informal evidence. Ideally, the evidence discovered
during the scan will discuss the specific emerging educational technology being considered, or
failing that, a convergent technology with congruent aims and affordances. The scan must
therefore be a critical, iterative process. Zhang, Majid, and Foo (2010) make a noteworthy
conclusion that environmental scanning requires strong information literacy skills, including
evaluation of the sources for their relevance to the information need that initiated the scan. In this
way, librarians are extremely well-positioned to model and teach others about environmental
scanning practices that incorporate excellence in information literacy and foster evidence based

17

practice.

A topic often overlooked in discussions of environmental scanning is the inclusion of
communities of inquiry (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2010), communities of practice
(Wenger, 1998), and professional (or personal) networks within the set of sources being scanned.
These informal sources serve as ideal locations for expanding environmental scans, revealing
new sources directly, or else providing links to professionals who might serve as a resource.
Outreach activities will also be a familiar to LIS professionals, and especially to academic
librarians, who are often called upon to cold-call faculty, students, and other user groups as a
regular part of their work. Placing a call to a respected colleague, sending an email to a
community listserv, or posting to a trusted social media site can be particularly fruitful. Instead
of simply trolling through a sea of information, this portion of the environmental scan allows the
scanner to submit a call for information and suggestions, facilitating responses from the
community and forging new connections in the process.

The point of the environmental scan in this decision-making model is not to reduce the reliance
on traditional, formal evidence in favor of a generating a soft evidence base. For those looking
for a more detailed example of this model in practice, see the iPads in the library case study
detailed by the authors elsewhere (Smith & Hayman, in press). Rather than replacing valued
forms of research, soft evidence can supplement other, more traditional hard evidence sources
when looking for the best available evidence. And while environmental scanning is not a
panacea solving all problems of evidence given that some evidence will remain undiscovered or
inaccessible despite the best efforts of the scanner, when combined with a traditional search for

18

formal sources, this addition of up-to-date soft evidence from trusted communities of practice
helps to build a more comprehensive, robust evidence base that creates a balanced approach to
the decision-making process.

Conclusion
Making evidence-informed decisions for emerging educational technologies in library instruction
can be a daunting task for practitioners and researchers alike. This issue is further complicated by
a perceived lack of available evidence on a particular emerging educational technology in
question. To foster a sustainable approach to decision making that supports the need for evidence
based practice, practitioners must shift from a false dichotomy mindset that positions so-called
trendsetting innovators against practitioners cautiously awaiting evidence. To support an
evidence informed selection and integration of emerging educational technologies, the authors
offer a two-pronged model that begins with 1) articulating pedagogical aims, aligning
technological affordances to these aims, and 2) supporting this alignment with hard evidence in
extant literature and soft evidence in the environmental scan.

Decision making around emerging educational technologies should include a range of sources,
acknowledging roles for both hard and soft evidence, particularly when faced with a lack of
published research around a recent technological development. Incorporating soft evidence
gathered via an environmental scan and using this in tandem with hard evidence that discusses
technologies that have similar aims and affordances is a tried and tested method that the authors
have used successfully in their own pedagogical and professional practice, and one they strongly
recommend to others practitioners looking to use evidence based practice in their instructional

19

settings.

Though the discussion above deals specifically with the problem of evidence surrounding
emerging educational technologies, the suggested approach can be used in a variety of settings
when considering educational technologies of all sorts, new or old. Ultimately, what becomes
most important is the meaningful integration of technology into one’s instructional practice.
There is significant pressure on librarians and their libraries to be seen as innovators and
technology-forward, and it is easy to fall prey to the pressure of hype cycles and assumptions
that practitioners should hurry up and meet a perceived demand from the current generation of
so-called “digital natives” who are supposed technophiles (Smith, 2012). However, constantly
racing to select, implement, and support every trend and technological shift is simply
unsustainable, as is the practice of adopting technology for technology’s sake, appearing to be
innovative.

Practitioners weighing the adoption of a technology should first consider whether there is in fact
a need to be filled, and critically examine whether this adoption aligns with identifiable
pedagogical goals. Since our libraries and institutions are continually called upon to stay abreast
of technological change of all kinds, practitioners need to be information-savvy innovators who
also view trends with a critical eye. By being ever conscious of hype cycles and seeking the very
best application of current evidence in practice, practitioners can foster sustainable decision
making for years to come.

20

References

Association of College & Research Libraries. (2012), “Characteristics of programs of
information literacy that illustrate best practices: A guideline”, available at
http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/characteristics (accessed 05 August 2014).

Association of College & Research Libraries. (2014), “Information literacy competency
standards for higher education”, available at
http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/informationliteracycompetency (accessed 05 August 2014).

Association of College & Research Libraries. (2001), “Objectives for information literacy
instruction”, available at http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/objectivesinformation (accessed 09
August 2014).

Barnes, C. (2013),”MOOCs: The challenges for academic librarians”, Australian Academic &
Research Libraries, Vol. 44, No. 3, pp. 163-175.

Booth, A. (2003), “Bridging the research-practice gap? The Role of Evidence Based
Librarianship”, New Review Of Information & Library Research, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 3-23.

21

Centre for Evidence Based Library & Information Practice. (2014), The Steps of EBLIP.
University Library, University of Saskatchewan, available at
http://library.usask.ca/ceblip/eblip/the-steps-of-eblip.php (accessed 31 July 2014).

Chrusciel, D. (2011), “Environmental scan: Influence on strategic direction”, Journal of
Facilities Management, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 7-15.

Einsiedel, E.F. (2009), “Making sense of emerging technologies”, in Einsiedel, E. F., (Ed.),
Emerging Technologies: From Hindsight to Foresight, UBC Press, Vancouver, BC, pp. 3-9.

Eldredge, J. (2004), “How good is the evidence base?”, in Booth, A. and Brice, A. (Eds.),
Evidence Based Practice for Information Professionals: A Handbook, Facet Publishing, London,
UK, pp. 36-48.

Eldredge, J. (2014), “The evolution of evidence based library and information practice
part III: Revitalizing the profession through EBLIP”, Evidence Based Library and Information
Practice, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 62-73.

Garrison, D.R., Anderson, T., and Archer, W. (2010), “The first decade of the community of
inquiry framework: A retrospective”, Internet and Higher Education, Vol. 13 No. 1/2, pp. 5-9.

Grummon, P.H. (2012), “A primer on environmental scanning in higher education”, Planning
For Higher Education, Vol. 41 No.1, pp. 69-74.

22

Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., and Freeman, A. (2014a), NMC Horizon Report:
2014 Higher Education Edition, The New Media Consortium, Austin, TX, available at
http://www.nmc.org/publications/2014-horizon-report-higher-ed (accessed 30 July 2014).

Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., and Freeman, A. (2014b), NMC Horizon Report:
2014 Library Edition, The New Media Consortium, Austin, TX, available at
http://redarchive.nmc.org/publications/2014-horizon-report-library (accessed 15 November
2014).

Julien, H., Tan, M., and Merillat, S. (2013), “Instruction for information literacy in Canadian
academic libraries: A longitudinal analysis of aims, methods, and success”, Canadian Journal of
Information and Library Science, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 81-102.

Kaldis, B. (2010), “Converging technologies”, in Guston, D. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Nanoscience
and Society, SAGE Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 126-131.

Kolowich, S. (2013), “The MOOC ‘revolution' may not be as disruptive as some had imagined,
The Chronicle of Higher Education, 08 August, available at
http://chronicle.com/article/MOOCs-May-Not-Be-So-Disruptive/140965/ (accessed 30 July
2014).

23

Koufogiannakis, D. (2012), “Academic librarians conception and use of evidence source in
practice”, Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 5-24.

Koufogiannakis, D. (2014), “Determinants of evidence use in academic librarian decision
making.” To be published in College & Research Libraries. [Preprint], available from
http://crl.acrl.org/content/early/2014/01/17/crl13-570.full.pdf (01 August 2014)

Leckart, S. (2012), “The Stanford education experiment could change higher learning forever”,
Wired, 20 March, available from http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/03/ff_aiclass/3/
(accessed 30 July 2014).

Lewin, T. (2012), “Instruction for masses knocks down campus walls”, New York Times, 08
March, available from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/05/education/moocs-large-coursesopen-to-all-topple-campus-walls.html (accessed 30 July 2014).

Maguire, D. (2014), “The 'hype cycle’ of Moocs and other big ideas”, Times Higher Education,
09 January, available from http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/comment/opinion/the-hypecycle-of-moocs-and-other-big-ideas/2010206.article (accessed 01 August 2014).

Partridge, H., Lee, J. and Munro, C. (2010), “Becoming "Librarian 2.0": The skills, knowledge,
and attributes required by library and information science professionals in a Web 2.0 world (and
beyond)”, Library Trends, Vol. 59, No. 1, pp. 315-335, 375, 378.

24

Radniecki, T. (2013), “Study on emerging technologies librarians: How a new library position
and its competencies are evolving to meet the technology and information needs of libraries and
their patrons”. Paper presented at IFLA World Library and Information Congress, 17-23 August
2013, Singapore, available at http://library.ifla.org/134/1/152-radniecki-en.pdf

Sahin, I. (2006), “Detailed review of Rogers’ diffusion of innovations theory and educational
technology-related studies based on Rogers’ theory”, Turkish Online Journal of Educational
Technology, Vol. 59, No. 1, pp. 14-23.

Schuman, R. (2013), “The king of MOOCs abdicates the throne: Sebastian Thrun and Udacity’s
“pivot” toward corporate training,” Slate, 19 November, available from
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/education/2013/11/sebastian_thrun_and_udacity_distance_lear
ning_is_unsuccessful_for_most_students.html (accessed 01 August 2014)

Smith, E. E. (2012), “The digital native debate in higher education: A comparative analysis of
recent literature”, Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, Vol. 38, No. 3, pp. 1-18.

Smith, E. E. & Hayman, R. (in press). “Decision making and problems of evidence for emerging
educational technologies”, in Newton, P. and Burgess, D. (Eds.), The Best Available Evidence:
Wise Decision-making for Educational Improvement. Sense Publishers, Rotterdam.

Veletsianos, G. (2010), “A definition of emerging technologies for education”, in Veletsianos, G.
(Ed.), Emerging Technologies in Distance Education, AU Press, Edmonton, AB, pp. 3-22.

25

Wenger, E. (1998), Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Willcockson, I.U., and Phelps, C.L. (2010), “Keeping learning central: A model for
implementing emerging technologies”, Medical Education Online, Vol. 15.

Wu, K. (2013), "Academic libraries in the age of MOOCs", Reference Services Review, Vol. 41
No. 3, pp. 576-587.

Zhang, X., Majid, S., and Foo, S. (2010), “Environmental scanning: An application of
information literacy skills at the workplace”, Journal of Information Science, Vol. 36 No.6, pp.
719-732.

26