Article Note: On the benefits of buy-in

Citation for the article:

Harrison, J. and Rourke, L. (2006), "The benefits of buy-in: integrating information literacy int each year of an academic program," Reference Services Review, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 599-606.

I found this article to be a bit on the idealistic side. It assumes a good relationship with faculty and administration, which in many places can be lukewarm at best. However, the article does provide some good advice and ideas. So here go some of my notes and thoughts.

• On the formal relationship between librarians and first-year students. I personally find this intriguing and exciting. The authors write, "this mentoring relationship includes one-on-one consultations and guidance for the students in their graduating year; this student-librarian collaboration enables to the students to define and refine their major research areas and sources of information" (599).
  
• I found this a bit surprising in relation to the LIS literature. According to the authors, "there is very little in the literature on librarian-to-student mentoring of research skills, which is one of the most noteworthy aspects of our integration program" (600). My hunch is that a good amount of the mentoring described happens informally, so it does not get written up in the journal literature. You may find some of it the librarian sector of the blogosphere, but at least my limited observations have not seen any.
  

The article moves on to describe the program and how their instruction librarians got involved. The mentoring and assessment, to be honest, is not that much different from what I do. The only difference is that I lack a formal support structure. The authors state that students in their last semester are paired with a librarian and,

"The librarian provides the student with research assistance and guidance as the student prepares and writes a major (20 pages) interdisciplinary research paper. Librarian and student are paired based on the student's research topic and librarian's interest and expertise. They are required to meet at least twice each semester, although in many cases there were several additional meetings. Librarians were able to address areas of concern, help clarify topics, introduce resources, and refer to services" (603).

A lot of this is my job description. A difference is that I do not get the "luxury" of being paired based on interest and experience. Very often I help students with topics way out of my specialization areas, and I do just fine. After all, part of being a good librarian is the ability to be open to continuous learning. It's called reference work. I don't point this out to disparage the authors' work. It simply goes back to my remark that a lot of this work is already getting done, often informally, frequently with minimal support, and it is not getting written up in the journals.

• Another example to illustrate scalability. "For example, in the first-year course, we know that most of the students were 17 years old and likely to be very new researchers. Therefore, we introduced library and research concepts and created an assignment that involved the use of basic library reference tools such as online and print encyclopaedias. As the students' level of IL competence improved, we moved on to more sophisticated assignments and research tools. We helped them tackle sources such as journal articles and websites, and later with creating a sophisticated annotated bibliography in their final semester. We were able to provide two 1.5-hour IL sessions to classes in each of the four years of the program" (602).
  
• As always, there are challenges. "Another potential challenge is the increase in librarian workload that will result from a greater number of mentored students" (604).
  
• You need to share the load to make it work. "Three of us have overseen this project- two liaison librarians and the manager of IL. In a practical sense, it would be very difficult for one person to manage the workload associated with this endeavour. Spreading the duties over three people's schedules allowed for more quality time to be spent on the project. In addition, working as part of the librarian team, each with a different learning, work, and teaching style, has provided the opportunity to learn from each other" (605).
  
• And you need administrative buy-in and support. "Also, it would work best if a project charter were adopted by library administration to formalize the structure of such a project, in order to ensure institution-wide acceptance and enthusiasm, rather than starting with an idea and hoping for the best. Aligning and rooting a project such as IL/curriculum integration or librarian-student mentoring within the context of an organization's strategic priorities will also increase the chances of effective long-term delivery and success. With buy-in by librarians, students, and faculty, you may find yourself reaping the benefits of program integration" (605). For me, a lot of things like the Gypsy Librarian on Vox blog are ideas that started out of a need that I implemented hoping for the best. I saw a need, and I tried to do something about it without waiting for anyone else to catch up. However, the thing I wish at times that my superiors would understand is that many more things could be accomplished with a bit more institutional support (I think my immediate superior understands it, but sadly, the ones above are indifferent, to put it mildly).
  

Some items related to this article I want to look at later:

1. Mancuso's white paper. It can be read at the site, but it also provides options for PDF.
   
2. The Seven Pillars of Information Literacy.
   
3. U of Guelph Integrated Library Plan 2005-2010. This is a PDF document.
   

Article Note: On floating away from reference desk

Citation for the article:

Ott, Katherine and Sueling Chhiu. "The First Wave: Floating in the Florida State University Strozier Library, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida." New Library World 108.3/4 (2007): 165-176.

Read the article via Emerald.

This article overall was not bad, but I had some concerns after reading it. I was concerned about enforcement of rules, which seemed to rise with the floating, and the notion that roamers could be serving a function as "cheap security." In our setting, security is a bit of an issue; we are still fighting to get a security guard or two. So the last thing I would want is the idea of library rovers doing a security role spreading around. However, I do think the idea of roving reference does have some merit. The program's design as stated in the article:

"The floating program was designed to provide quick answers to directional, informational, and easy research questions from patrons at the point-of-need" (166).

In the literature review, we get yet another description and listing of millenial traits. Any librarian who has done even a minimal job of professional awareness knows these traits by now.

Keep in mind that the floating program described in the article also has an enforcement element:

"This program is also designed to enforce all library policies, to assist with the maintenance of the stacks, to walk six floors of the library on a daily basis, and to assist desk personnel with patrons by having staff who are walking floors check in at the information and reference desk every fifteen minutes" (169).

Now, I am one of those librarians who don't go "ga ga" over every liberal and permissive trend. For example, if cellphones are disruptive, I want them out, and so do a lot of my patrons contrary to what certain 2.0 maniacs proclaim. However, this does not mean I want to be in the position of being the cellphone or drinks police. The concept as presented in the article creates a conundrum for me. I would like to aim for a reasonable middle ground.

The Strozier Library used student assistants for much of the floating, followed up with staff members. The students did receive relevant training. Interesting to note that it was the students who more often identified unacceptable behavior from patrons. The authors conclude that the project was worthwhile and beneficial to patrons. Article appendixes include the floating statistics sheet and the FSU Libraries Food and Drink Policy.

Booknote: Centers for Learning

Elmborg, James K. and Sheril Hook eds. Centers for Learning: Writing Centers and Libraries in Collaboration. Chicago: ALA, 2005. ISBN: 0838983359

Genre: Nonfiction
Genre: Library science, librarianship, pedagogy

In brief, the book is a collection of essays advocating collaboration between writing centers and libraries. Given that I was a composition teacher in a previous life, I can certainly see common elements between the two services. The fact that at times I actually do look over parts of papers puts me somewhere in the fence. The editors open the book with an essay that provides the theory and context for the collaboration. The rest of the book then has various essays with examples of collaboration for readers to learn from. This topic is something I have been thinking about in and out since I became a librarian due to my background as a teacher. I think we could be doing a lot more in this regard. Anyways, this book makes good reading for anyone interested in the topic as well as the larger topics of information literacy and student success on campus.

Article Note: On stopping IAKT Syndrome

Citation for the article:

Bell, Steven J. "Stop IAKT Syndrome with Student Live Search Demos." Reference Services Review 35.1 (2007): 98-108.

Read via Emerald.

This article describes active learning techniques useful to counter the dreaded "I already know this" syndrome. To go with the theme, I will say that I know some of this already. However, the article provides good advice for any academic librarian that does teaching. Some notes and ideas from the article then:

• Defining IAKT. "From the students' perspective all instruction may appear to be the same. Exposure to a variety of information literacy sessions as freshmen can lead students to assume that any librarian providing instruction in their sophomore and upper level courses is simply there to rehash an earlier presentation" (99).
  
• One challenge for librarians. "The burden is on the librarian instructor to employ pedagogical methods that will enable students to distinguish between multiple sessions to recognize their distinctive and differentiated features" (99).
  

I would add that some collaboration and diligence from faculty can help with the syndrome as well. Having an actual purpose for coming to the library would be helpful. Asking for more than "just whatever library talk you have made" (yes, I have heard this a few times). Making sure students are prepared to do research specific and relevant to the class would be nice. All these are things a faculty member can and should do when bringing a class to the library. Sure, the librarian is responsible for using the best active learning techniques and for providing a good session. But some proactive collaboration from faculty would help as well. I did not see this addressed in the article.

Additionally in my case, IAKT can be a danger given the bottleneck nature of our freshman composition classes. The retention and success rate for those classes is on the dismal side. Seeing students from one year to the next repeating the class and coming to library instruction again is not uncommon. For me, this means I really have to be on my toes.

• If the student says they know it already, then challenge them to prove it. Sure, it is risky, but it can be rewarding as well. "Involving students in the instruction session is a dynamic way to activate student learning. Because it requires the instructor to in essence 'hand over' the session to a student, sometimes in a completely spontaneous way, it can be subject to a number of challenges" (100).
  

Bell goes on to provide reasons for involving the students in the learning experience. For one, it not only engages students, but it also engages the librarian as well. Bell goes on to describe how to involve students in demonstrating searches. This is not an approach for the faint of heart. I've tried it, and indeed, anything can and does happen. You have to be willing to embrace the chaos. Bell also provides helpful tables listing advantages and disadvantages of the approach.

• "Being in a smaller university or college allows librarians to know students on a personal level, facilitating good classroom interaction" (103). This is part of the reason that I often say that I have the best job in the world: I have regular opportunities to interact with students and know them on a personal level given our smaller size. However, I don't think this is exclusive of a smaller campus. A good instruction librarian will work on building good personal relations with students no matter the size of the school.
  
• "As the session leader the instructor's responsibility is to step back, guide the session and be able to relinquish control. Avoid the urge to tell students what to do and how to navigate in every situation. It can be healthy for students to see that they have classmates who lack expertise in using library resources. It will also demonstrate that a student need not be as skilled as a librarian to accomplish a reasonably good database search" (105).
• "Search demonstrations by students need not be perfect. In fact, expect some rough spots and the occasional flop, especially the first few times trying it. Even if the students get a less thorough instruction session than they would if a librarian did all the demonstrations, it is this author's observation that they ultimately have a more powerful learning experience when their peers search the library databases" (107).

On library discourse?

I hate to say this, but I have to wonder after reading Mr. Bell's column for Inside Higher Ed on "Good at Reviewing Books But Not Each Other," just what corner of the library sector of the blogosphere was Mr. Bell hanging out at. "In the world of library blogging the sky is always sunny, and nary is a dissenting or argumentative thought expressed," he writes. Initially my reaction was, "oh really?"

• We have the reactions to what has become known as Gormangate.
  
• We have the semi-regular musings over the value of a membership in ALA. This often boils down the organization just does not do enough for its members given the high fees it extracts, and then some ALA defends the value of ALA and tells those questioning that if they don't like it, they can go someplace else.
  
• The "should conference speakers be compensated" semi-seasonal meme and debate.
  
• The whole 2.0 thing. This is usually manifested by someone going "ga ga" over the latest little toy. Someone else questions the value of said little toy. The evangelist then says "you either get it or you don't." Some more fussing ensues, and then it dies down until the next widget comes around. Personally, this is a big reason why I avoid touching any L2 or 2.0 topic altogether.
  

Now, the library literature, which Mr. Bell also brings up in his column, is a separate issue. We don't really talk about it in our profession, and maybe there Mr. Bell has a good point. The fact is you can tell pretty much right away that a lot of LIS articles are just librarians writing something for their tenure dossiers. Substance is not always present in the LIS literature. The profession does not like to talk about that because, after all, some of our academic brethren do have to play the "publish or perish" game, and in that situation, you do whatever you need to do to get tenure. Now, I am not saying that there are no battles to fight, so to speak, in our profession. But the battles certainly are not getting fought in the library literature. The library literature is, for the most part, a depiction of libraries where they always have the resources they need, full buy-in and support from the administration (or, there may be some drama as they get the buy-in, but they always get it), and faculty that just love their library and think the library can do no wrong. I read enough articles in the literature to know this by now. I make notes on the few I find useful or that contain something I can learn. However, readers here are fortunate I don't make notes on the many bad ones I simply glance and then toss out. How some people get published in LIS is beyond me. Because when I was in my Literature program, there was a lot more rigor back then about what one would write for publication or presented at a conference. But I am digressing.

The point is that if any controversy does happen in our field, you see it in the blogs. It's the nature of the beast. Blogs are swift and easy to publish. You can get the ball rolling on the controversy du jour fast. And once the A-listers of our profession cover the issue or gripe du jour, it goes down the list like an avalanche, ACRLog included. Sometimes it's polite; sometimes it is not so polite. Academic journals simply do not lend themselves to fast and controversial discussions. If the topic has already visited the library sector of the blogosphere, by the time it gets on a journal, it's pretty much old news.

Now, to talk a bit about the chill in the library sector of the blogosphere. Who knows? For me, it's more along the lines of who cares? Mr. Bell writes, discussing the 2.0 groupthink phenomenon, "and in the end then nice thing to do is just go along with the crowd." I'll say nay. The nice thing for me is to stay away from the crowd. Sure, keep an eye on it, but otherwise, let it run its course. Between my work locally, which keeps me very busy most of the year, and just other things I would rather explore and write about, I don't care a whole lot about where the rest of the herd goes. In that, to some extent, I may share more agreement with Mr. Bell that I think. Again, who knows? I am pretty much figuring this out myself as I am writing it.

In my case, I also value civility. I grew up with the maxim of "if you don't have anything nice to say, then don't say it." It does not mean I can't be blunt if necessary. But why bother stirring a nest of hornets here and alienating people there with a lack of civility? By the way, discussion listservs seem to be the place these days where a lot of civility gets tossed out the window. Not to mention their annoying repetitiveness where a topic gets beaten to death and then dragged from the pit to be beaten some more after death over and over (and I get the digest versions). That is why I am seriously thinking about dropping the few listservs I still get. By the way, here is a piece of blunt advice for those of you who post on the listservs: learn to fucking (you see, I can be blunt) prune your posts. Last thing I need is to see the same thread 20 times in the digest version and have to dig for whatever "me too" or "atta boy" you added to the discussion because you are too lazy to highlight and delete the extra stuff from the text when you press the reply button on your e-mail to type your two lines of herd affirmation. Of course, if I said something like that on a list, the flame wars would begin because it is a no-no to point out any perceived faux pas on a list.

As for the self-esteem issue in the library profession, that would be a whole separate post, and it looks like one I can leave the stars of the library sector of the blogosphere. My self-esteem as a professional is just fine.

Here are a couple other people who have a take on Mr. Bell's column:

• K.G. Schneider sees it as "Rigor Mortis."
  
• Rory Litwin says that Bell gets "Tough on LIS discourse."
• And I can always count on the Annoyed Librarian who points out there is "Not Enough Criticism."