College & Undergraduate Libraries

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wcul20

Online for all: A case study of an online common

reading program at a public university

Paizha Stoothoff & Kendall Faulkner

To cite this article: Paizha Stoothoff & Kendall Faulkner (2022) Online for all: A case study of an
online common reading program at a public university, College & Undergraduate Libraries, 29:3-4,
206-225, DOI: 10.1080/10691316.2022.2152516

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10691316.2022.2152516

Published online: 02 Dec 2022.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 66

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wcul20
College & Undergraduate Libraries read programs can facil itate camaraderie and discussion
2022, VOL. 29, NOS. 3–4, 206–225 around a book’s story and themes. This paper describes
https://doi.org/10.1080/10691316.2022.2152516 how the common read program at California State
University, Los Angeles shifted from an in-person to a
fully online program during the COVID-19 pan
demic (academic year 2020–2021). The authors suggest
Online for all: A case study of an that an online common read program offers unique
benefits and can be as engaging as an in-person
online common reading program program when it is informed by the interests and needs
of students and other community members. Common
at a public university reads, book selection, event planning, and lessons
learned are examined.
Paizha Stoothoff and Kendall Faulkner
University Library, California State University Los
Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA
Introduction
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 22 June 2022 Revised 20 October 2022 Accepted 23
November 2022
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT Common read programs; library events;
Common read programs are a popular way for first-year experience; online learning;
organizations to bring their community together. Through virtual programming; remote programming
thoughtful book selection and event design, common

Common read programs typically consist of a large group of people

reading a selected book and engaging in discussion and events
around that book in something akin to a massive book club. These
initiatives are popular at universities and colleges, K-12 institutions,
public libraries, and other public or nonprofit organizations. Similar to a
book club’s ability to create a space for meaningful interaction
between strangers or friends, a primary goal of most common read
programs is to create a shared experience and build community
around a chosen book.
In March of 2020, people all over the world sequestered themselves
at home to take shelter from the COVID-19 pandemic, losing
connection to their communities. In this article, the authors will discuss
the common read program at California State University, Los Angeles
(Cal State LA), and how the initiative was adapted to a fully online
program in order to maintain that sense of togetherness while the
campus was closed. This descriptive case study can serve as an
example for other universities

CONTACT Kendall Faulkner kfaulk3@calstatela.edu University Library, California State University

Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Ms. Stoothoff left Cal State LA in September 2021, and she is currently Senior Grant Writer at
HealthRIGHT 360. All work/research was conducted while affiliated with Cal State LA.
© 2022 The Author(s). Published with license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
College & Undergraduate Libraries 207
looking to include online or virtual activities in their common read
programs.

About the Cal State LA OCOB program

Cal State LA’s One Campus, One Book (OCOB) program began in
2008 and is hosted by the University Library. The objectives of the
OCOB program are to:

• Stimulate a shared experience through reading,

• Inspire and support community conversations, and
• Encourage academic enhancement through cross-curricular
partnerships.

The program aims to be relevant to all levels in the curriculum,

though there is a particular emphasis on welcoming first-year students
into the University through the shared experience. A committee of
volunteer librar ians manages the program’s activities, which include
selecting a book and hosting events. The committee also maintains
program funding through grants and other funding sources. OCOB is
primarily funded by the Cal State LA’s Office of the Provost through an
annual Instructionally Related Activities grant of approximately $4,000.
Other funding sources have included the University Library Dean
($1,000-$2,000) and donations solic
ited from various partnering departments or offices on campus.
Applying for funds each year is not ideal, and others seeking to
implement a sus tainable common reading program should strive to
obtain an on-going
funding source to avoid delays in planning and uncertain budgets.
Each academic year, the OCOB committee facilitates a campus-wide
book selection and voting process. Nominations from students, faculty,
and staff are considered alongside committee selections for program
appro priateness. The committee also creates a LibGuide featuring
general infor mation about the program, an events calendar, and
training and resources for faculty and student assistants teaching with
the book. Programming varies by year and book but has included
book giveaways, faculty or community-member panels, author talks,
and even a theater performance when the book was based on a play.
All events have historically been live and in-person, and they have
taken place in the fall semester when first year courses in which the
book is most frequently assigned are offered. Programming varies from
year-to-year depending on the selected book and its relevance to
student interests and campus stakeholders. The OCOB program has
partnered with many groups on campus, including the University
Honors College, the Cross-Cultural Center, the Dreamers Resource
Center for undocumented students, a campus well-being initiative
208 P. STOOTHOFF AND K. FAULKNER

called Mind Matters, the English department’s First-Year Writing

Program, and Project Rebound which serves previously incarcerated
students. Working with these groups has improved the committee’s
ability to select a book and plan events collaboratively, increase
student attendance and participation in programming, and connect the
book to the curriculum.

Literature review
Cal State LA is a public institution situated in East Los Angeles that
serves a nontraditional student population. Approximately 60% of the
university’s 26,000 students are first-generation college students, a
majority (70%) are Latinx, and most (63%) are Pell grant eligible (Cal
State LA 2020). First
generation students of color are more likely than continuing-generation
students to encounter hidden curriculum, deficit-model teaching, and
microaggressions at the individual and institutional level in college,
which unfortunately lead to decreased morale, engagement, and
graduation rates among first-generation college students (Lee and
Harris 2020). Avoiding these systemic pitfalls by supporting first-
generation college students who are predominately students of color
from low-income families is vital for student retention, our universities,
and our society.
Common read programs are known to positively impact student
engage ment and camaraderie. These programs support students in
staying con nected to their studies and to each other. In a study of a
common read program’s effects on engineering students at the
University of Virginia, the researchers found that positive outcomes of
the program included improved connections for first-year students and
broadened student per spectives (Edington, Holmes, and Reinke
2015). Common read programs contribute to student engagement by
providing opportunities to model intellectual engagement and promote
peer-to-peer learning in low-stakes environments (Edington, Holmes,
and Reinke 2015; Laufgraben 2006). Through program activities,
students have opportunities to listen and participate in book
discussions with their peers, with faculty, and across disciplines.
Scholars have asserted that common read programs promote a sense
of shared intellectual experience and enhance students’ first year of
college, ultimately improving retention in degree programs (Fidler
1997; Ferguson 2006). While studies of common read programs have
indicated benefits for students, a caveat of most of these studies is
that activities must be carefully designed to engage students and
achieve positive out comes. There are challenges in hosting engaging
common read programs. Successful programs are time consuming for
faculty and/or librarians who do not traditionally receive service credit
for the work (Benz et  al. 2013; Edington, Holmes, and Reinke 2015).
Involving campus stakeholders in
College & Undergraduate Libraries 209

program planning requires considerable relationship-building, but it is

vital for integrating programming into existing departmental goals and
ensuring participation in activities and events. Planning can take
several months before and after events, which is burdensome to
librarians and other faculty with intense workloads.
Not surprisingly, much of the literature on common read programs
provides advice on efficiently planning and hosting impactful programs.
There are some common read program guidebooks written to the
audience of librarians interested in starting or improving programs.
The American Library Association’s (2003) electronic guidebook on
common read pro
grams describes itself as “a resource for librarians everywhere.” It
offers guidance on program partnerships, funding, marketing/outreach,
and book selection. Examples of resources offered in the ALA (2003)
guidebook include practical templates including budget worksheets,
event project management checklists, and evaluation forms. Similarly,
Laufgraben (2006) provides practical templates, such as book criteria,
and best practices for successful programs. Laufgraben (2006)
defines successful programs as those that build relationships and plan
activities in alignment with pro gram, departmental, and campus goals.
Planning activities aligned with broader common read program goals
begins early and with book selection. Scholars have recommended
using selection criteria that is tailored to campus and student needs
and pref erences, such as whether the author is local and affordable
for an author talk (Laufgraben 2006). Additionally, Nadelson and
Nadelson (2012) suggest assessing whether a book’s themes and
content are aligned with student interests, such as major areas of
study. In their article, Benz et  al. (2013) discuss the importance of
involving writing program representatives in book selection and event
planning; involving stakeholders ensures that the program reflects
departmental goals, ultimately increasing department and instructor
buy-in. Another consideration affecting campus buy-in is a book’s
accessibility and affordability. Edington, Holmes, and Reinke (2015)
recommend verifying paperback availability, since paperback is
considerably less expensive than hardback copies. Boff et  al. (2005)
suggest getting book discounts through partnerships with the publisher
or campus book store. When the selected book is affordable and
available through campus networks, students can attain copies and
instructors are more likely to embed the book in their syllabi. There are
other methods for increasing student engagement early in the
academic year. Some common read pro
grams give all incoming first-year students a copy of the book to
enhance engagement. Unfortunately, this approach is unrealistic at
large public universities with limited budgets and a very large number
of incoming students. Scaled approaches include giving copies to
faculty who are
210 P. STOOTHOFF AND K. FAULKNER

teaching with the book or providing free copies for a limited number of
students (Edington, Holmes, and Reinke 2015). Libraries can also
place copies of the book on the library reserves to enable hourly, daily,
or weekly free check-outs for all students.
Limited research shows that collaborating with campus partners and
integrating the book into the curriculum can significantly improve a uni
versity common read program’s reach and impact. Laufgraben (2006,
ix) suggests that common read programs should “move beyond
isolated efforts to sustained initiatives embedded in campus culture.”
In a review of col laborative university common read programs in the
United States, Angell (2019) notes that partnering with campus offices
and departments increases common read program presence and
visibility. These partnerships support the adoption of the book into the
curriculum, collaborative assignment design, and event attendance
(Angell 2019). Librarians can also provide information literacy support
related to the common book, such as course-in tegrated information
literacy instruction sessions for first-year students reading the book
(Philips and Case 2013). Another approach is to provide information
literacy assignment support for faculty teaching with the book.
Providing common read related engagement activities and information
literacy instructional services and support, can establish a common
read program as a supportive component of the library’s overall goals,
such as reducing library anxiety experienced by first-year students and
increasing student information literacy skills (Megwalu, Miller, and
Haller 2017).
While research on the success of collaborative and embedded
common read program approaches is relatively common, little has
been published on online common read programs. Online common
read programs can host synchronous or asynchronous activities in
online settings, such as remote raffles or live virtual author talks.
Online programs have the potential to be more inclusive for students
unable to participate in-person, including distance education students,
students with busy schedules, and family members. Online library
resources appeal to distance education students. In a study of off-
campus student use of e-books at Central Michigan University library,
Grudzien and Casey (2008) found that as the library’s collection of e-
books supporting the curriculum grew, the pro portion of off-campus
student usage of ebooks increased alongside the growing collection.
Common read programs are excellent venues to pro
mote e-books and build their use into the curriculum. Similarly,
common read programs can offer online events and other
programming to engage students regardless of their physical location.
At Dakota State University Library, Francis (2011) piloted a series of
web 2.0 activities, including a web page featuring student-submitted
photos and videos, online discussions using the application
VoiceThread, and a web page widget enabling
College & Undergraduate Libraries 211

students to share their thoughts on what it meant to them to be a

person in their 20 s. Similar to the guides and review article discussed
above, which stress the importance of collaboration in creating
engaging common read programs, Francis (2011) found that
participation in web 2.0 activities improved drastically when the book
was integrated into a course and when it was promoted in
collaboration with campus partners. Francis (2011) recommends using
web 2.0 activities to augment in-person discussions and lectures.
Aside from the case study by Francis (2011), the library and
information science literature on online common read programming is
non-existent. Libraries are, however, evidently offering online common
read program ming. A brief scan of university common read websites
shows many libraries hosted online programming during pandemic-
related campus closures in 2020, and they are continuing to do so
post-pandemic. In the 2020–2021 academic year, the University of
California, Los Angeles (UCLA) library innovatively selected the Netflix
television series, BoJack Horseman, as their common text and hosted a
variety of asynchronous activities throughout the year (University of
California and Los Angeles 2021). Since 2021, California State
University Bakersfield has promoted public Zoom keynote speakers,
Facebook live events, and essay contests (CSU Bakersfield 2021).
The COVID-19 pandemic has only amplified the need to share and
investigate best practices and experiences for hosting online common
read programs.
In this case study, the authors share methods, results, and lessons
learned during the planning and implementation of a fully remote and
online common read program during the 2020–2021 academic year at
the Cal State LA, University Library. This case study is intended to
help fill the gap in the library and information science literature on
online common read programs. The authors hope it will be useful for
librarians and other professionals interested in planning or improving
online common read programs in university or college settings. This
case study may also be useful for planning online com mon read
programs in public or school library settings as well.

Case study/methods: An online program at Cal State LA

In March 2020, the Cal State LA campus closed due to the COVID-19
pandemic. As a result, a committee composed of four librarians transi
tioned the OCOB program from an in-person to an online program. In
this section, the authors will discuss the methods for planning and deliv
ering a fully online program, including book selection, asynchronous
online programming, and synchronous online events.
212 P. STOOTHOFF AND K. FAULKNER

Book selection
Each year, the committee compiles a list of about thirty books, narrows
the list to 5–7 finalist book titles, and conducts a campus-wide vote to
determine the book for the upcoming academic year. To compile a list,
the committee browses local lists and solicits nominations from on-
campus partners such as the Director of the Cross-Cultural Center
and professors who have assigned OCOB texts in previous years. The
committee meets with partners to deliberate on nominated titles each
spring. In lieu of an in-person selection meeting in late spring 2020,
the committee invited partners to recommend titles through email or
an anonymous online form. As in previous years, the committee
welcomed nominations from all genres, including fiction, nonfiction,
hybrid forms, graphic novels, poetry, short story cycles, or essay
compilations. To guide nominations and a transparent selection
process, the committee posted to the OCOB website selection criteria
(in no specific order): local author, diverse characters, cross-dis
ciplinary applications, appropriate length and reading level, affordable
price, book format availability, and dissimilarity to recent OCOB
selections. While the committee used the selection criteria developed
in previous years, the most notable criterion affected by the remote
and online setting was the book format availability. The committee
typically orders a book affordably available in paperback format and
provides free copies through reserves. The OCOB program committee
typically places 10–20 book copies
on reserve to help alleviate access barriers for students unable or unin
terested in purchasing the book. The pandemic closure resulted in the
elimination of library reserves, and subsequent lack of access to free
copies via reserves for students. To foster equitable access for all
students and to support continued instructor adoption of the selected
book, the com mittee revised the selection criteria to include only e-
books with unlimited access licenses. All Cal State LA students with
internet access and a device, regardless of location, would be able to
access the e-book through the library website.
The book selected for the 2020–2021 academic year was Always
Running, by Luis J. Rodriguez. The ebook permalink was posted to the
library’s One Campus, One Book LibGuide, shared via campus-wide
email, and shared via social media and the library home page banner.
The committee hosted a variety of asynchronous and synchronous
activities.

Asynchronous online programming

Kickoff event – book giveaway
The OCOB program budget at Cal State LA is $5,000-$6,000, and the
estimated cost of providing all incoming first-year students with a copy
College & Undergraduate Libraries 213

would be over $20,000. Because giving all new students a copy of the
book is unfeasible at Cal State LA due to a large student body and
limited budget, the program hosts an annual kickoff event and gives
away approx imately thirty books to students. The kickoff event builds a
sense of community around the book and helps promote upcoming
programming. In the past, the OCOB committee had created a fun
atmosphere by gam ifying the book giveaway with activities such as a
prize wheel and a button-making machine. This approach had
garnered attendance in the past; at the previous year’s kickoff event
(in fall 2019), over two hundred students dropped by the event, thirty
books were given away, and several campus partners attended to
show their support.
To continue with this engagement for the online program in 2020–
2021, the OCOB committee converted the kickoff event into an online
sweep stakes-style book giveaway. In the grant renewal application,
the committee requested funds for sixty copies of the book (twice the
number historically requested) to expand the number of students with
access to a print copy. The committee created a Qualtrics form to
gather contestant information. Students completed a form for a chance
to win a print copy of the book, which the committee mailed directly to
their preferred address. The kickoff event was promoted on the library
home page, the library’s social media channels, and among partners
including instructors who had regular con
tact with students. The form was open for two weeks (August 24 -
September 11, 2020). In addition to converting the event to an
asynchronous online format, the committee experimented with a few
new asynchronous activities described below.

Related reading & listening

In Always Running, Luis J. Rodriguez recalls listening to old records and
Chicanx artists as he grew up in Los Angeles. Based on these textual
references, the committee created a Spotify music playlist consisting of
twenty-six songs (1 hour, 43 minutes of listening time). Artists included
Santana, Miles Davis, and Rufus Thomas. The committee created the
playlist before finals in spring 2021 and shared the link through cam
pus-wide email, social media, and the OCOB LibGuide. In addition to
related listening, the committee purchased about a dozen related e-
books throughout the year including all finalists identified during the
selection process. Other related readings included titles (e-books for
accessibility) suggested by Luis J. Rodriguez during an author talk,
addi tional books written by the author, secondary source titles on
related social issues, and related literature such as Chicanx poetry. All
related e-books were posted to the Libguide page
(https://libguides.calstatela. edu/2021OCOB).
214 P. STOOTHOFF AND K. FAULKNER

Education through your lens

In collaboration with two librarians from the library’s makerspaces
working group, the committee provided students with the opportunity
to submit a photo (via form) in response to the question, “What does
education mean to me?” The committee selected this question
because Always Running explores the author’s educational journey,
including his interest in literature, spending time at the library, and
interacting with teachers who impacted his life. To encourage
participation, the library’s Communications Strategist and Event
Coordinator created a banner for the library home page and linked
directly to the form. The committee planned to share photos on the
library’s social media accounts, with permission from submitters.

Synchronous online events

Community panel
Since 2018, the OCOB program at Cal State LA has hosted an annual
panel attended by 100+ guests on a theme or issue covered by the
year’s book. The panel has been hosted in-person at a large
auditorium on campus and is geared toward a student audience. The
committee has invited Cal State LA faculty with related research and
teaching interests to speak about themes and issues present in the
book.
For the online program, the committee decided to continue with a
panel and to offer it in a live, virtual setting via video-conference
software. Many students, faculty, and staff across campus expressed
feeling isolated and yearning for community during the pandemic. To
foster community and explore themes in Always Running, the
committee transformed the faculty panel into a community panel and
invited students and panelists with related lived experiences and/or
research. The committee recruited speakers and hosted the
community panel in partnership with Project Rebound, a program at
Cal State LA that supports formerly incarcerated students as they
work toward a baccalaureate degree (Project Rebound 2021). Four
Cal State LA-affiliated panelists (two student alumni and two faculty)
spoke together in a Zoom webinar facilitated by a librarian. Three of
the four speakers had lived incarceration experience, and topics dis
cussed included issues in the juvenile and criminal justice system,
women’s rights issues, Latinx rights history, and the education system.

Author talk
The annual author talk is typically the most well-attended event at Cal
State LA, gathering 150–200 students in recent years. The committee
has hosted the event at the same auditorium as the faculty panel. The
event was in-person until 2020.
College & Undergraduate Libraries 215

The virtual author’s talk brought together Luis J. Rodriguez and a pro
fessor in the English department, Dr. Bidhan Roy. The speakers were
previously acquainted as they each taught courses at Cal State LA’s
degree program for incarcerated men in Lancaster State Prison. The
author talk was a 2-hour virtual event hosted on Zoom in a webinar
style setting for security. Attendees registered via Zoom’s registration
feature using a Cal State LA email address. The webinar included a
brief introduction and an informal conversation between Bidhan Roy
and Luis J. Rodriguez, and an author Q&A segment where students
asked Mr. Rodriguez questions. The talk was a fascinating discussion
about Luis’ life, political and community activism, experience with the
justice system, and perspective about racial justice issues in the
United States.

Zine workshop
While the focus of the case study presented here is a full year of virtual
programming around Always Running, it is worth noting that program
ming for the previous year was not complete when Covid-19 forced the
University to begin remote instruction in March of 2020. The committee
quickly assessed whether the remaining event, a zine workshop, would
be possible in a virtual format. The 2019–2020 book was a graphic
novel, Diary of a Reluctant Dreamer, in which author Alberto Ledesma
shares his moving and at times painful experiences as a formally
undoc
umented person. The goal of the planned zine workshop was to give
students an opportunity to express their own experiences in a visual
medium similar to a graphic-novel by providing inspirational guidance
and supplies for making their own self-published visual texts.
Traditionally constructed in a physical format, zines are most
commonly made by folding paper, using magazine clippings and
mixed media, and making copies with photocopiers. This presented a
distinct challenge when migrating to an online format. Fortunately,
through a partnership with the Los Angeles Zine Fest
(www.lazinefest.com), our presenters gra ciously and seamlessly
transitioned their workshop into a live video-con
ference. The virtual zine workshop was a success, and more than ten
student attendees and one faculty member attended the event. With
participant permission, pictures of students’ zines were preserved in
Cal State LA’s digital archive.

Results and analysis

E-book selection and usage outcomes
The unlimited access e-book criterion greatly reduced the number of
books available during the selection process because most popular
reading
216 P. STOOTHOFF AND K. FAULKNER

titles are either available in print or as e-books with limited user

licenses (most commonly 1 or 3-users at a time). With the addition of
this cri terion, the committee was unable to add most titles
recommended by partners to the ballot as final nominees. Of the thirty-
three titles recom mended by librarians and partners, only eight titles or
about a quarter of the total suggestions were available as unlimited
access e-books (Figure 1). Given that the ballot sent for a campus-
wide vote typically includes five nominees, eight titles were adequate
and exceeded the number of books needed.
 Both quantitative and qualitative data showed that selecting an unlim
ited e-book strongly supported book access and use. In the fall 2020
semester, the unlimited e-book Always Running was used over 32,000
times (one use is defined as a user viewing at least one page of the e-
book). This number far exceeds the number of times (138) the
selected text was checked out from the library reserves in the 2019–
2020 academic year. While e-book usage data and reserve checkout
data are different metrics, the comparative data does suggest very
heavy usage of the e-book. Having the selected book available as an
unlimited e-book advanced both access among students and adoption
among instructors. Instructors expressed strong support for having the
e-book available through the library’s sub
scription. During an informal feedback session with first-year writing
instructors at the close of the academic year, instructors cited reduced
cost, improved access for all students regardless of ability to pay, and
ease of use for quick references and quotes as benefits of the
unlimited e-book format.

Figure 1. License types of the 33 recommended books.

College & Undergraduate Libraries 217

Asynchronous programming outcomes

Over one hundred (121) students participated in the kickoff event and
book giveaway by completing an online form, approximately the same
number as in previous years. Of the total students who completed a
form, ninety-one answered the question, “are you reading the book for
a class?” In hindsight, the authors should have made the question
required rather than optional to ensure answers from all participants.
Approximately a quarter of students who answered the question
affirmed they were reading the book for a class (Figure 2). Of those
students who responded that they were reading the book for a class, a
vast majority were enrolled in introduction to higher education courses
(indi cating first-year student status), while only a few students were
enrolled in first-year writing, other lower division, and upper division
courses (Figure 3). The committee also asked students whether they
would like to receive future communications about OCOB. Of students
who answered the question, 84% indicated they would like to be sent
information about OCOB events.
The online book giveaway event enabled the committee to send
physical copies of the book to students, which was met with
excitement from student winners on the library’s social media page.
However, several challenges were encountered that made the event
very time consuming for the authors. Campus mail was not being sent
or received due to the COVID-19 campus closure. Therefore, the
authors had to coordinate shipping and make approved trips to the
library to package and ship materials.

Figure 2. Breakdown of respondents reading or not reading the book for a

class.
218 P. STOOTHOFF AND K. FAULKNER

Figure 3. Breakdown of respondents by type of course.

One benefit afforded by an online common read program was the

ease of linking multimedia related to the selected book. However,
tracking usage of linked multimedia was a challenge. The Spotify
application does not enable playlist creators to view the number of
times a playlist was listened to, so the committee did not have a sense
of how many students listened to the playlist. When accessed from the
OCOB LibGuide, the Spotify playlist was clicked two times; however,
the link was likely clicked more via social media and email shares.
Unfortunately, the authors do not have usage statistics for related
reading.
Students did not participate in the Education through Your Lens
activity; the authors received only one submission. Lack of
participation was likely due to not integrating the activity into course
assignments and using Google Forms for photo submission. Google
Forms requires users to sign-on to their Google accounts when
submitting forms with photo attachments, creating a submission
barrier.

Synchronous event outcomes

While the zine-making event was small, with around ten students,
those that attended were engaged and shared personal experiences
of pandemic life that they might include in a zine. Approximately 50
students attended the virtual community panel, similar to the previous
year’s in-person panel attendance. The authors were concerned that
hosting an author talk as a Zoom webinar would cut down on the
engagement by attendees; however, the built-in question and answer
option allowed attendees to give com
ments and positive feedback in addition to questions, showing their
College & Undergraduate Libraries 219

appreciation and engagement. More than 170 people attended the

author talk which was a similar number to the previous year’s live
author event. The committee was pleased to see that attendance
stayed the same in virtual formats for both virtual synchronous events.
As the committee members planned the first virtual event in April
2020, they were not prepared for the possibility of Zoom-bombing, and
the event was briefly crashed by a user posting obscene comments in
the chat and making inappropriate sounds on their microphone. Not
yet familiar with the software, committee members struggled to eject
the intruder but were able to get the meeting back on track within a
few minutes. While the occurrence left the team somewhat
disheartened, the committee self-trained on best practices for event
security and had secure events for the rest of the year. Later, during
the pandemic closure, Cal State LA’s Information Technology
department released Zoom security protocols. However, the protocols
were designed for private classroom settings and did not fully protect
public online events, where verifying attendees’ identities becomes
more complicated. Librarians hosting public events need to take extra
security precautions, a few of which are listed below. The committee
developed the following best practices based on Zoom’s help pages,
Cal State LA IT, and personal experience:
 • Consider if a traditional meeting or webinar style is best for the
event. Webinars typically have less interactivity, but more control. •
Do you need the chat function, or is a Q&A format enough? • Do you
anticipate allowing attendees to speak or turn on their camera?
• Set up multiple hosts who can help with logistics, and ensure they
are enabled in Zoom settings.
• Practice ‘crowd control’ prior to the event. Make sure all hosts
know how to mute and remove participants.
• Mute ALL mics and only the host and co-host(s) have authority to
unmute.
• Change the settings so that users cannot change their names; this
prevents users from ‘spoofing’ other users and posting chats or
par ticipating as though they are someone else.
• Require registration for the event with a campus email. This can be
done with a third-party event sign-up application and only
registered guests will receive an email to join the event. Note:
This will reduce the number of ‘public’ attendees who seek to
register with a public (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) email address.
• If the event is public, only allow users with institutional domain
email addresses to register for friends and family with outside
email addresses.
• If the event is public, also disable chat to guarantee chat security.
220 P. STOOTHOFF AND K. FAULKNER

Since the committee established these informal guidelines, many uni

versities and online guides have been established to prevent Zoom
bomb ing; however common read program hosts should consider the
above tips if they are hosting public events.

Qualitative feedback
Instructor feedback about online programming was overwhelmingly
positive during informal virtual meetings at the end of the academic
year. The graduate student teaching assistants in the English
department, who were required to teach with the book, noted that the
content and the common reading experience itself created a sense of
community beneficial for online classes. Additionally, TAs appreciated
that a local author wrote the book, about local issues similar to those
affecting Cal State LA students today. The selected book, Always
Running, is a memoir in which the author, Luis J. Rodriguez, reflects on
his experiences such as growing up in East Los Angeles, attending
public school, experiencing police brutality, interacting with affluent
white peers, and more. Rodriguez writes about intersections between
the personal (e.g., connecting with nontraditional literature) and the
political (e.g., the 1968 East LA walkouts). TAs informally shared that
the text enabled them to create assignments where students could
explore why macro-level issues (i.e., the COVID-19 pandemic, police
brutality and political issues, and Black Lives Matter protests) matter in
their personal lives, ultimately supporting student engagement. Writing
short stories or poems about personal reactions to social issues
allowed students to situate personal experience as legitimate
evidence.
One instructor expressed a desire to see more collaboration
between the instructors using the text as required reading and the
author talk event, since it has the potential to garner so much
excitement. For exam ple, the OCOB program could integrate student
presentations of in-class assignments before or after an author talk.
While those making decisions about having an author present for
student presentations should consider the expense of the authors’
time and planned activities, integrating student involvement beyond a
Q&A may enhance the authentic engagement of students, instructors,
and the author.
The authors gathered student feedback throughout the semester to
guide decisions made for the new program setting and activities. For
example, during the book giveaway, the committee had originally
planned to pri oritize giving copies to students enrolled in courses
where the text was required reading. However, on the sweepstakes
entry form many students expressed wanting to read the text simply
for pleasure, because it related to their major, or to learn more and
participate in events. Therefore, in
College & Undergraduate Libraries 221

the spirit of creating community across campus, the authors selected

stu dents at random as winners for the book giveaway. For feedback
on synchronous online events (the Zoom workshop, community panel,
and author talk), the committee created short surveys with less than
five questions. However, few participants completed the survey forms
due to poor timing of distribution in the online webinar settings, where
link overload becomes an issue.

Discussion
The committee learned that there are both benefits and downsides of
hosting online common read programs, and that activities can be
further adapted and used in hybrid settings in the future. Most notably,
selecting an unlimited access e-book was a component
enthusiastically supported by instructors teaching with the book.
Utilization of the e-book far exceeded the authors’ expectations and
was excellent. The authors’ findings are consistent with Grudzien and
Casey (2008) conclusions that e-books supporting the curriculum are
appealing and heavily used by off-campus students. While the number
of unlimited e-books is limited, the authors recommend that organizers
make it a priority to select titles in unlimited access e-book formats to
foster equitable access and instructor adoption of the text.
One potential option to expand access to the text may be selecting
an open access book that would not only be free to the campus
community, but also to alumni and the external community. The first
hurdle in locating open access materials is the genre. The traditional
choices for common read programs are memoirs and journalistic
writing from traditional pub
lishers. However, these types of books are rarely available as
unlimited, open access e-books. Future planners may consider
different genres or types of texts that are available as open
educational resources (OER), or other publicly available resources.
For events that require a physical component, such as the book
giveaway and mailing print copies to students, the authors recommend
thoroughly surveying available resources to identify time-consuming
obstacles early-on in the program design phase. While the shipping
barriers the authors encountered were due to COVID-19 related
closures and were excessive, giving away free items and shipping
them to students can be deceptively complicated at large institutions.
Campus administration may have concerns over privacy and gifts. For
example, giving students gift cards may neg atively impact student
financial aid. In planning activities, librarians should connect with their
institution’s administration to identify these potential hurdles early-on
and before budgets are approved. If planned correctly, a
222 P. STOOTHOFF AND K. FAULKNER

book sweepstakes can be an excellent kickoff event. The event helps

build community by connecting with students and provides hosts with
oppor tunities for outreach and future event promotion. The authors
recommend collecting student email addresses and voluntary
permission to contact them about future events in event forms. This
strategy can be a great way to maintain contact and promote future
activities for students reading the book.
The authors’ findings for asynchronous activities were consistent
with previous findings, which show that course integration is essential
for activity participation (Francis 2011). When instructors integrate the
OCOB text into course syllabi, and give students credit for
participating in OCOB activities, students are more likely to attend
events and engage in the program (Francis 2011). While the
committee integrated most OCOB activities into many course syllabi
(for example, first-year writing students delivered presentations about
Always Running adjacent to the author talk), the committee also
experimented with a nonintegrated music playlist. The Spotify playlist
was intended for students to enjoy during finals. Unfortunately, usage
data for Spotify playlists was not available. Since software that tracks
music playlist usage may not be readily available, the authors
recommend engaging students by using creative approaches such as
soliciting recommendations from students, using the playlist to DJ the
author talk, or asking music students to participate. While
asynchronous activities certainly have potential to grow at Cal State
LA, they need to be integrated into existing events and courses with
existing attendees and interests.
Hosting online synchronous events in virtual formats proved a more
affordable alternative to in-person author talks. For virtual author talks,
programs do not need to budget for author travel and stay; therefore, a
greater portion of the monies can be applied to the author fee. This is a
significant benefit because author fees commonly exceed $5,000 and
con
sume a vast majority of common read program budgets. In addition to
making the author fee more affordable for the committee, online author
talks may incentivize authors to attend across further distances and/or
lower their fees. Similarly, the online synchronous event setting
enabled the committee to recruit a more diverse group of speakers for
the com
munity panel. Speakers included Cal State LA alumni who were no
longer living in the area. Recruiting speakers proved easier than in
recent years, perhaps because of the virtual setting and the removal of
physical barriers to attendance.
This case study also showed that synchronous online event
attendance was the same if not slightly higher than previous in-person
events. One possible explanation for the attendance numbers is the
ease of access to
College & Undergraduate Libraries 223

online events. Students who may have been unable to physically

attend events were able to attend online, overcoming obstacles such
as moving during the pandemic, being a distance education student,
or having a busy schedule. The committee was thrilled to see some
students brought family members to the virtual author talk. This
outcome was particularly useful, since barriers to attending events in-
person at Cal State LA are com
pounded by heavy traffic and limited parking in Los Angeles.

Conclusion
The experience of the 2020 common reading program at Cal State LA
indicates there is great promise for expanding initiatives into the online
realm, particularly when cost and a distributed community are a factor.
Selecting a book tied to the local city, and one that explores themes
relevant to students and the current socio-political landscape, may
have contributed to the overall success in creating engagement and
community online. Virtual programming is not without challenges,
however, and future initiative plan
ners will face new obstacles hosting hybrid programs and events in the
post-pandemic world. Additionally, there are interesting questions for
the future of e-book usage in college courses and large-scale
programming and the ability of libraries to work with publishers to
make unlimited access e-books available. For future years of the
program, the committee seeks to gain not only grants and donations to
support the program, but also to identify and gain consistent, long-
term funding through the University administration, departmental
partners, and/or the library administration. With sustainable funding,
the authors envision the continuation of a hybrid in-person/online
OCOB program that also consistently offers free or very low-cost texts
with e-book options for participants.

Acknowledgments
Thank you to the other Librarians on the OCOB committee who were essential in plan
ning and delivery of the program, including Jennifer Masunaga (Instruction and
Reference Librarian) and Azalea Camacho (Archivist and Special Collections
Librarian at Cal State LA). Thank you to Kelsey Brown (Communications Strategist &
Event Coordinator) and Jaycen Mitchell (Communications Student Assistant) for the
extremely valuable assistance with outreach for the OCOB program, including
creating beautiful marketing materials and promoting the program on the library’s
social media channels and website. Thank you to other campus stakeholders that
have continuously supported the program and have been such strong partners,
including Danelle Dyckhoff Stelzriede, Director of First
Year Writing and Assistant Professor of English; Amy Robb, Andres Galindo, and
Michael Reyes, Teaching Assistants for English Department’s First-Year Writing
Department; Tiffanie Ford-Baxter, Science Librarian, and Sheree Fu, Engineering,
Computer Science, and
224 P. STOOTHOFF AND K. FAULKNER

Technology Librarian; Summer Brantner, Program Coordinator for Project Rebound;

and Laura Tejada, Assistant Director for the Cross Cultural Centers; Bidhan Roy,
Professor of English; and Luis J. Rodriguez for participating in Cal State LA’s first
online common read program.

Funding
This work was supported by Office of the Provost at California State University Los
Angeles; Instructionally Related Activities Grant.

ORCID
Paizha Stoothoff http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2330-611X
Kendall Faulkner http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0366-6310

References
American Library Association. 2003. One Book, One Community: Planning Your
Community-Wide Read. Public Programs Office of the American Library Association.
https://www.ala.org/tools/sites/ala.org.tools/files/content/onebook/files/
onebookguide. pdf.
Angell, Katelyn. 2019. “The Academic Library and the Common Read: A Multitude of
Possibilities for Collaboration with Campus Programs and Departments.” Journal of
Academic Librarianship 45 (6):1–3. doi: 10.1016/j.acalib.2019.03.007.
Benz, Brad, Denise Comer, Erik Juergensmeyer, and Margaret Lowry. 2013. “WPAs,
Writing Programs and the Common Reading Experience.” Journal of the Council of
Writing Program Administrators 37 (1):11–32.
http://associationdatabase.co/archives/37n1/37n 1benz-comer-juergensmeyer-
lowry.pdf.
Boff, Colleen, Robert Schroeder, Carol Letson, and Joy Gambill. 2005. “Building
 Uncommon Community with a Common Book: The Role of Librarians as
Collaborators and Contributors to Campus Reading Programs.” Research Strategies
20 (4):271–83. doi: 10.1016/j.resstr.2006.12.004.
California State University, Los Angeles, Office of Institutional Effectiveness. 2020.
“Fall 2020 Facts.” Accessed 18 October 2021.
https://www.calstatela.edu/InstitutionalEffectiveness/ quick-facts.
CSU Bakersfield. 2021. “One Book Project.” College of Arts & Humanities. Accessed 2
August 2021. https://www.csub.edu/ah/onebook-project.
Edington, Stacie, Archie L. Holmes, and Petra Reinke. 2015. “A Tale of Two Common
Reads: Models for Developing a Successful Common Reading Program for First-
Year Engineering Students.” In 2015 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, 26–122.
Ferguson, Michael. 2006. “Creating Common Ground: Common Reading and the
First Year of College.” Peer Review 8 (3):8–10.
https://www.aacu.org/peerreview/2006/summer. Fidler, Dorothy S. 1997. “Getting
Students Involved from the Get-Go: Summer Reading Programs across the Country.”
About Campus: Enriching the Student Learning Experience 2 (5):32– doi:
10.1177/108648229700200509.
Francis, Mary. 2011. “Turning a One Campus One Book Event into a Web 2.0
Experience: The First Two Years.” College & Undergraduate Libraries 18 (4):399–
408. doi: 10.1080/10691316.2011.624948.
College & Undergraduate Libraries 225

Grudzien, Pamela, and Ann Marie Casey. 2008. “Do Off-Campus Students Use E-
Books?” Journal of Library Administration 48 (3):455–66. doi:
10.1080/01930820802289532. Laufgraben, Jodi Levine. 2006. Common Reading
Programs Going beyond the Book. Columbia: National Resource Center for The First-
Year Experience and Students in Transition.
Lee, Elizabeth M., and Jacob Harris. 2020. “Counterspaces, Counterstructures: Low‐
Income, First‐Generation, and Working‐Class Students’ Peer Support at Selective
Colleges.” Sociological Forum 35 (4):1135–56. doi: 10.1111/socf.12641.
Megwalu, A., Christina Miller, and C. Haller. 2017. “The Library and the Common
Reader Program: A Collaborate Effort to College Transition.” Reference Services
Review 45 (3):440–53. doi: 10.1108/RSR-11-2016-0081.
Nadelson, Sandie G., and Louis S. Nadelson. 2012. “In Search of the Right Book:
Considerations in Common Read Book Selection.” Journal of College Reading and
Learning 43 (1):59–66. doi: 10.1080/10790195.2012.10850362.
Philips, Sarah F., and Emerson Case. 2013. “Contextualizing Information Literacy
Enrichment through a Common Reader in a First-Year Experience Seminar.”
College & Undergraduate Libraries 20 (1):1–24. doi:
10.1080/10691316.2013.761046.
Project Rebound. 2021. “Project Rebound.” Accessed 2 August 2021.
https://www.calstate la.edu/engagement/project-rebound.
University of California, Los Angeles. 2021. “The Common Experience at UCLA.”
Accessed 2 August 2021. https://firstyearexperience.ucla.edu/commonexperience.