Screencasting: A New Way to Deliver Staff Development

Social networking, open cloud sources, screencasting are all new words in the world of

librarianship. These new Web 2.0 tools can help librarians better prepare their patrons to be

information literate. One path to increase patron information literacy is to have an informed

faculty. If the faculty knows about the resources, they use them and encourage their students to

use them. These new tools can help librarians enlighten a new generation of students and engage

their busy faculty in the use of library resources. The purpose of this article is to discover

information about one of these new tools: screencasting. The article was initiated by a perceived

need by the author at a technical college library and will explore the journey to using this

technology. This article is organized into four sections: need and objective; literature review;

software and examples review; and implementation.

Need and Objective:

The purpose of this article is to inform the readers about the use of screencasting to

broaden their faculty’s knowledge about the various library resources. Ogeechee Technical

College Library is a small, rural library located within a technical college of 70 full-time

instructors and 3000 students. The librarian was employed at the college in 2008 and began

providing staff development sessions to familiarize the faculty with the resources available

through the library. The attendance at these sessions was poor with only 21% of the faculty

participating. The librarian began to wonder if a new approach was needed. The college at the

time was going through COC accreditation, quarter to semester conversion, and a large

enrollment increase. The librarian sent out a survey to the instructor to substantiate the perceived

need. The return rate from the 70 full time instructors was 70%. The survey was a short form
sent to full-time faculty members through campus email. The first question addressed the best

time for them to have some library training on the electronic resources available in the library.

The second question asked them to determine how familiar they were with the various library

resources. The final question asked them to indicate how interested they would be in learning

how to use the various electronic resources available through the library.

The following are results of the September 30th survey sent to OTC Faculty:

Which would better serve your needs? Choose one.

Provide hands-on training in library during the quarter 22%

Provide hands-on training in library between quarter 29%

break
Provide on-line course you could do at your 58%

convenience

How familiar are you with the following library resources?

Very Moderately Not

Familiar Familiar Familiar

Library On-Line Catalog 15% 55% 30%
GALILEO 28% 56% 16%
Britannica Online 12% 49% 39%
NetLibrary/Ebrary 16% 41% 43%
Credo Reference 4% 33% 63%
GALE Nursing Center 4% 10% 86%

How interested are you in learning about the following library resources?

Very Moderately Not

Interested Interested Interested

Library On-Line Catalog 28% 62% 10%
 GALILEO 35% 51% 14%
Britannica Online 24% 62% 14%
NetLibrary/Ebrary 35% 53% 12%
Credo Reference 28% 56% 16%
GALE Nursing Center 22% 27% 51%

As seen from the survey, most of the faculty would utilize staff development training if it

was at a time convenient for them. Most of them were moderately familiar or interested in the

different resources except GALE. The nursing faculty, however, was very interested (95%) in

learning how to use GALE. The GALE databases are new to the college and have only been

introduced since the beginning of Fall Quarter. These results were not surprising and were

consistent with a study done by Jacksonville State University (B a r n e t t - E l l i s & G r i f f i n ,

2 0 0 3 ) in which they found that the library needed to increase faculty awareness of resources.

From this information, the librarian began reading articles and webpages for the best

programs to do screencasting and to find examples of it being used in a library. She began by

posting a query on the ListServ with her immediate peer group- the Georgia Technical Colleges

Librarians. No one responded that they were using screencasting or providing any type of online

staff development.

Literature Review

Using screencasting for online tutorials is a relatively new technology. Screencasting is

“where a video file of the running of a program is used to help people understand the functions

of the desired program” (C u r r a n , P o l l o c k , M c G a r r i g l e , & F e r g u s o n , p.1574, 2009). In

other words, it is basically a short video recording of actions being performed on a computer

screen. Popular computer science magazines began discussing screencasting first. The term was
coined by John Udell in 2004. He ran a contest for his readers to name this new technology and

chose the term sent in by two readers (C u r r a n , P o l l o c k , M c G a r r i g l e , & F e r g u s o n ,

2 0 0 9 ). Screencasting has been available since 1993 with ScreenCam by Lotus but had not been

used by the “common” people until Udell did a screencast showing how to use it. Udell is best

known for his work at the InfoWorld Test Center and now considers himself an “evagalist” at

Microsoft. He found this technology to be very useful in teaching technology skills (Udell,

2005). Most articles and books about it have only been published since 2005. For this literature

review, the author reviewed articles on the origin of screencasting and its uses by various

librarians throughout the nation.

The author of this article began looking at new technologies to enhance staff

development. Within library science literature, screencasting was viewed as a necessary tool by

many instructional librarians (B r o w n - S i c a , S o b e l , & P a n , 2 0 0 9 ) . However, most of those

librarians were using it to provide IM/Chat screens for patrons calling about a particular

problem. Some of them used screencasting for online information literacy tutorials. Notess

(2005) stated that screencasting is being used by academic libraries for online tutorials,

technology departments to show software upgrades, and by software companies to show how to

use their programs. One library that had an extensive use was Washington State University

Library. Four librarians worked on developing a range of Web-based tutorials. They addressed

the issue of faculty not finding the time to give to library orientation lessons and to faculty’s

belief that students come with information literacy skills (L i n d s a y , C u m m i n g s , J o h n s o n ,

& S c a l e s , 2 0 0 6 , p.430). The librarians used Qarbon Viewlets, HTML-based modules, and

interactive readings to create their tutorials. Their research indicated that the tutorials were
successful and unsuccessful. They were successful in that students were using and praising the

library resources more. However, they were not very proficient at using the resources.

Most of the body of literature focused on the different software programs being used and

not on using it for faculty staff development. In the article by B r o w n - S i c a , S o b e l , & P a n

(2009), they allude to the fact that it would be a useful tool for professional development for

library staff and faculty. However, the article was also researching the use of the products and

not actually discussing implementation.

The most current and abundant literature about screencasting is found in blogs and other

online information. The largest project to date that has been implemented was the ANTS: The

Animated Online Tutorial Sharing Project. The librarians at California State University San

Marcos (CSUSM) have created screencast for online and distance learning students. They used

TechSmith Camtasia or Adobe Captivate to produce the tutorials.

Software and Examples Reviews

After reviewing the literature and visiting several websites suggested in the articles, the

author decided it was time to examine examples from experts in the field and to examine the

different software packages. From the literature reviews and websites, several names were

prominent in the literature. Therefore, the author spent some time on their blogs, on their

websites, and examining their examples. The name that was most prevalent was John Udell. He

appears to be the one who started more people using screencasting by using it in his blog. He

states, “If people aren’t getting it, maybe it’s time to stop blaming them and start telling stories

they can’t forget or misunderstand” (Udell, 2005, p.34). Also within this group is Greg Notess

who has done a variety of workshops and conferences on the advantages of using screencasting.
He has suggested many uses for librarians: “create online tutorials for using a library catalog,

searching databases, installing software, or demonstrating a specific software application…can

help distance learners, showing the exact steps they need to take…efficient if used in conjunction

with e-mail or telephone instructions” (Notess, p. , 2005). Paul Betty, the Distance Librarian at

Regis University, is an advocate of screencasting and has developed many tutorials for his

library. He promotes screencasting as a great way to promote library resources. He recommends

Cativate, Camtasia, Viewlet Builder, Wink, Camstudio as good products for screencasting.

Another person whose name is mentioned frequently in the literature is Ian Ozsvald. He has

created over 170 screencasts since 2005. He founded ProCasts, a professional screencasting

company, in 2008 and has produced The Screencasting Handbook.

From the literature and these experts, several software packages were recommended by

each of them. Rethlefsen (2009) did an in-depth review of most of these free and purchasable

screencast software packages that were recommended by the experts. The free software

packages she investigated are: Screentoaster, Screen-cast-o-matic, Cam Studio, Capture Fox, and

Jing. Based on her five criteria, she rated Cam Studio as the most favorable one. For each of the

software packages she gave the reasons for each category rating and how it would be used in a

library setting. The purchasable software she investigated is: Jing Pro, HyperCam2, Adobe

Captivate 4, Camtasia Studio 6. For its usability and pricing, Camtasia Studio 6 was definitely

the favored choice. The author continuously iterated that the user must evaluate the need and use

of the product to make a decision on the best package to use.

This review by Rethlefsen (2009) is consistent with most of the other reviews. Reviews

were found by Notess (2010), Aune (2008), Hay (2008), Betty (2008), Ozsvald (2010), and
Udell (2005) indicate that those packages were the most common being used. Below is a chart

developed to compare the various software packages as reviewed by the authors listed above.

Free Software

Software Title Platform Pros Cons

ScreenToaster Online Ability to add Windows XP and

subtitles at bottom Vista didn't capture
entire desktop; no
simultaneous audio
capture; use hotkeys
to pause or stop
Screen-O-Matic Online Java-based program Framed by Google
recorder with free Ads; based on Java
hosting; saves as which has problems
QuickTime, Windows on some machines;
Media Player, Flash; image not as sharp
record 15 minutes
Cam Studio Download Audio is recordable no post recording
from microphone or video or audio
speakers; uses AVI or editing; video
SWF formats; has annotation is not user
audio and video friendly;
capture and exporting
options
Jing Download has hosting with no post audio or video
screencast.com; saves editing; inserts
as shockwave flash watermark at
file; allows direct beginning of video;
posting to YouTube, records only 5
Facebook, Flickr minutes
Wink Download Records motion and recoding and output
sound settings for audio and
video are limited

Purchasable Software

Software Price Pros Cons

Jing Pro $14.95/year can create MPEG-4 Records only 5
videos; upload to minutes; requires
YouTube; removal of Microsoft.Net
 Jing branding Framework
HyperCam 2 $39.95 can pause to make on- will only record one
the-fly annotations window; only export
one format, AVI; no
post recording editing
Adobe Captivate 4 $799.00 lots of features, expensive; not as user
extensive tech friendly; each slide
support; provides edited individually;
online quizzes export to only one file
type, SWF
Camtasia Studio 6 $299.00 Contains an editor, Has a learning curve;
integrates with has some issues with
screencast.com for some notebook
hosting; standout computers
feature is its audio
editing capabilities

After examining the literature and blogs from expert users, it appeared that the packages

to be further examined were: Screen-o-matic, Cam Studio, and Jing. These packages appeared to

full-fill the needed requirements of simple-to-use and free. So, the journey continues.

Implementation

Three software packages were chosen to review for implementation: Screen-o-matic,

Cam Studio, and Jing.

Screen-o-Matic: www.screencast-o-matic.com. A short YouTube video showing how to use

Screen-O-Matic. Screencast-O-Matic.com launch for Windows. http://www.youtube.com/watch?

v=EhPMt0lKUuM. The program is online so there is no installation. Go to the website. Launch

the program and it immediately begins to record. The program was very easy to use. The screen

capture area, however, was not large enough to capture the whole screen. The area had to
constantly be manipulated to capture the area being discussed. The sound quality was good. It

showed a small yellow circle whenever the mouse was utilized. It was very easy to upload to

Screen-O-Matic so that a library could be created with a user name and password. It was also

very easy to upload to a YouTube account.

Cam Studio: http://camstudio.org Cam Studio was more confusing. There were several websites

that allowed you to download the software. Each one loaded the same product onto the

computer. At first, the sound did not record. The screen capture had flashing corners around the

area it was capturing which was distracting. It would only save it as an avi file. The sound

quality was fair.

Jing: http://www.techsmith.com/jing/ Jing had tutorials located on the website which made it

easier to use. The screen capture area was larger than Screen-O-Matic. With the free version, it

will not load to YouTube. With either version, the video can only be five minutes long. The free

version only records in .swf format whereas the pro version will save in MP4 format which will

allow editing of the video. Jing would be very useful for reference librarians in instant messaging

chats.

These three free versions could easily be used by librarians in a short session of

recording. The important item to remember when using these products is to practice before

beginning to record since they do not allow editing.

The use of screencasting is an important tool that can be used by librarians to develop

online staff development sessions for their faculty. With the free and inexpensive software

packages that are available, it would be easy to implement this process. The use of screencasting

will improve the availability of library resources to faculty. From the research and use of the
different programs, screencast staff development was easily developed for the Ogeechee

Technical College Faculty. The rest of the journey continues when evaluation of the use of the

staff development begins…

References

Aune, S. (2008, February 21). 12 screencasting tools for creating video tutorials. Mashable,
Retrieved from h t t p : / / m a s h a b l e . c o m / 2 0 0 8 / 0 2 / 2 1 / s c r e e n c a s t i n g - v i d e o -
turotials.

Barnett-Ellis, P., & Griffin, L. (2003). Faculty use of electronic library resources. Academic
Exchange Quarterly, Fall. Retrieved from
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi-hb3325/is_3_7/ai_n29051761 .

Betty, P. (2008). Creation, management, and assessment of library screencasts: the Regis
libraries animated tutorials project. Journal of Library Administration, 48(3), 295 – 315.

Brown-Sica, M., Sobel, K., & Pan, D. (2009). Learning for all: teaching students, faculty, and
staff with screencasting. Public Services Quarterly, 5, 81-97.
Curran, K., Pollock, D., McGarrigle, R., & Ferguson, Colleen. (2009). The world of podcasting,
screencasting, bloggin, and videoblogging. Encyclopedia of multimedia technonlogy and
networking. Hersey, PA: Information Science Reference.

Hay, A. (2008, August 19). Screencasting:how to start, tools and guidelines. Smashing
Magazine, Retrieved from
http://smashingmagazine.com/2008/08/19/screencasting-how-to-
start.

Lindsay, E.B., Cummings, L., Johnson, C., & Scales, B.J. (2006). If you build it, will they learn?
assessing online information literacy tutorials. College & Research Libraries, Sept 2006,
429-445.

Notess, G. (2005). Casting the net: podcasting and screencasting. Online, 29(6), 43-45.

Notess, G. (2010, October 2). Libcasting [Web log message]. Retrieved from
http://www.notess.com/screencasting/software .

Osvald, Ian (2010). The Screencasting Handbook. Procast: U.K.

Rethlefsen, L. (2009). Screencast like a pro. Library Journal, April 15, 2009, 62-64. Retrieved
from w w w . l i b r a r y j o u r n a l . c o m .

Rethlefsen, L. (2009). Product pipeline. Netconnect. Winter 2009, S12-S14.

Udell, J. (2005). Secrets of screencasting. Info World. 27(20), 34.

Udell, J. (2005). Fast-Forward Learning. Info World. 27 (12), 32.